Bitcoin Forum

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUCwCgthp_E

"We're gonna start with Iraq, then we're gonna move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran."
"Seven countries in five years? Is that a classified memo?"
"Yes sir!"
"Well don't show it to me"

The video is of 2007. So the time-frame is over. The Americans invaded Iraq in 2003, and they are still occupying that country. But none of the others (Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran) are currently under American occupation. Looks like Clark's plan was vetoed by Obama, after he was elected as the POTUS in 2008.  ;D

I'm really unknowledgeable on any of these recent ongoings, but training Syrian rebels sounds similar to the special forces training SVA before the US officially joined the fray in Vietnam

I don't think that America will get directly involved in Syria. At best, they will train the rebel fighters and send them technical and financial assistance. Any involvement in Syria will be much more costly when compared to that in Iraq.

/sarcasm I'm glad that my country is not on that list.

However, this will turn right back around eventually. The US won't 'reign' forever.

With 0 matches in 7 not 5 years , I wouldn't trust this guy making bitcoin price forecasts.

Although an intervention to make dust out of what is left of the "Pirates of Somalia" would be a good idea.

We don't "reign" now. Our leaders seem to think we do. Sadly their messes seem to blow back on civilians when the perpetrators are long out of office.

You are wrong US had a complete pull out of Iraq....

The US had a partial pullout, after all the oil wells and the gas rigs were given to the American Corporations. Some 17,000 American soldiers are stationed at the American embassy in Baghdad and at consulates in Basra, Mosul and Kirkuk. Also, there are more than 5,000 American private security contractors, stationed all over Iraq.

Love how you got that from wiki but did not put the header up there and changed it around lol
Full article
Full withdrawal (2011)[edit]
See also: U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement
With the collapse of discussions about extending the stay of U.S. troops,[25][26] President Obama announced the full withdrawal of troops from Iraq, as previously scheduled, on 21 October 2011.[26] The U.S. retained an embassy in Baghdad[26] with some 17,000 personnel,[27] consulates in Basra, Mosul and Kirkuk, which have been allocated more than 1,000 staff each,[27] and between 4,000 to 5,000 defense contractors.[26] President Obama and al-Maliki outlined a broad agenda for post-war cooperation without American troops in Iraq during a joint press conference on 12 December 2011 at the White House. This agenda included cooperation on energy, trade and education as well as cooperation in security, counter-terrorism, economic development and strengthening Iraq's institutions. Both leaders said their countries would maintain strong security, diplomatic and economic ties after the last U.S. combat forces withdraw.[28][29]

President Barack Obama paid tribute to the troops who served in Iraq on 14 December 2011, at the Fort Bragg military base in North Carolina. As the last of the American troops prepared to exit Iraq, he said the United States was leaving behind a "sovereign, stable and self-reliant" Iraq.[30] On 15 December, an American military ceremony was held in Baghdad putting a formal end to the U.S mission in Iraq.[31][32][33] The last 500 soldiers left Iraq on the morning of December 18, 2011.[1][2][3][4][5][6] At the time of withdrawal, the United States had one remaining soldier, Staff Sergeant Ahmed K. Altaie, still missing in Iraq since October 23, 2006, and had offered a $50,000 reward for his recovery.[34] On 26 February 2012, his death was confirmed.[35][36][37]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We occupy and secure the embassys in Iraq that is all, who cares if private contractors are there...

over 67,000 are stationed in Europe... Guess we occupy euro as well
 Kuwait   11,415
 Japan   50,631
 Germany   40,328
 United Kingdom   9,485

Stop twisting facts to suit your needs.

We discuss a lot of these issues here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=48119.0

Nice spotting this one.
Replacing personell with soldiers .. that low bryant , very low..

Guess that mother russia is also occupied by the americans , they have 2000 embassy personal soldiers  there.

btw... Russian companies  have rights to a large amount of oil fields in iraq
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10731708/Russias-Lukoil-opens-giant-Iraq-oil-field-adding-to-crude-glut.html

Love when people try to bash the U.S. with fud

Nothing wrong there, as 99% of the embassy staff in Baghdad are from the military. Normal embassies and consulates don't employ more than a thousand people, including all the security guards.

99% of most embassy staff are military in hostile countries, that is kinda like a no shit sherlock thing. would you work at a embassy in afgan with out security? FACK NO

But why did you use the world soldiers when it's obvious the original text was with personnel.
It's clear that you purposely replaced the text , RT style  to make your point.

So the ~100 embassy staff needs the security of ~16,900 soldiers? That is 169 soldiers for every single staff. And then they need some 5,000 additional private security contractors as well?

That embassy employs over 15000 people......
Not just american, but Iraqi's they live eat and sleep in that compound.

Us and their gun deals....:)

So, after Syria, Iran will be next?

This video has been around for ages and yes it is pretty much on the money. Only reason they're not in Iran yet is because they haven't been able to blow the nuclear weapons bulllshit out of proportion, and Iran has actually been very reasonable. They know they can't do the same thing as in Iraq.

The problem with Iran is that unlike Iraq, that nation possesses advanced ICBMs and other weapons. And with Armed Forces currently numbering in their millions, an invasion of Iran could become the costliest ever war waged by the Americans.

Didn't you guys watch the new Robocop movie? It shows how the US will pacify Iran with their army of robots.


"Advanced ICBM's?" How about no ICBM's.

The problem for US citizens is not about ICBM's (whether they have them or not) but about the general attitude towards the US. The US gov. attitude is pretty much the same if you are in Iran. It kind of reminds me of the Iraq story  "The nation possesses weapons of mass destruction and other weapons. And with Armed Forced currently numbering in their millions..."
 

Sure about that?

http://iranprimer.usip.org/resource/irans-ballistic-missile-program


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_IspKX-WkdgA/SsF4tPhMlOI/AAAAAAAACZg/OGbuzg38UC8/s400/Iranian+missile+range.png

A map of states with nuclear weapons https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/50/Nuclear_weapons_states.svg/877px-Nuclear_weapons_states.svg.png (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/50/Nuclear_weapons_states.svg/877px-Nuclear_weapons_states.svg.png) Iran is not on the list.  Turkey has weapons of mass destruction tho  ::)

Maybe we need to define ICBM for you

An intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) is a ballistic missile with a minimum range of more than 5,500 kilometres (3,400 mi)[1] primarily designed for nuclear weapons delivery (delivering one or more nuclear warheads). Similarly conventional, chemical and biological weapons can also be delivered with varying effectiveness. Most modern designs support multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs), allowing a single missile to carry several warheads, each of which can strike a different target.

You are full of twisted fax.....................

Turkey is just a NATO nuclear weapons sharing state. That means that there are a number of nuclear weapons (around 70) located in its territory, but they are not under the control of the Turkish Armed Forces. Those weapons are located in the Incirlik Air Base, and under the control of the 39th Air Base Wing of the United States Air Force.

/sarcasm

I knew Clark had to be nuts when Madonna endorsed him for president.

Is the POTUS post reserved only for war criminals? Wesley Clark was one of the masterminds behind the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, where the American jets bombed Serbian orphanages, killing dozens of children. Another war criminal is confirmed as the Democrat candidate for the 2016 election. May be Wes could win the GOP nomination?

And just look how peaceful Iraq has become after the mean us guys have left the country

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/6/10/iraq-mosul-isil.html

Situation has become a bit calm in Iraq, with the exception of a few regions.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/48891000/gif/_48891052_iraq_deaths464x261.gif

And this is the real cost of the Iraqi invasion.

http://www.brussellstribunal.org/js/ckfinder/userfiles/images/actions_BT/maart%202013/affiche%20justice%20for%20Iraq%20-%20verso.jpg

Let me add the missing years:

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/components/multigraph/multigraph.php?w=606&h=216&style=db&sy=2009&ey=2014&type=mk&res=month&loc[]=0&wea[]=0&for[]=0&siz[]=0

Indeed it's becoming more and more peaceful day  by day

He was a committed neocon before it was cool.

iraqbodycount.org underestimates the number of dead. According to independent sources, more than 1 million civilians have been killed in the Iraq conflict so far. Bu according to the iraqbodycount.org, it is less than 100,000.

http://www.brussellstribunal.org/article_view.asp?id=803#.U5l6tvmSw_s

Read a few articles from that blog and you'll soon understand why they are over estimating and claiming others are underestimating the number of deaths.

It's another blog with biased information like info wars.
But of course , like an us hater  , you should be comfortable with those.

USA in fact is not attacking countries, they are making them to fight eachother, or causing civil wars.. so they dont need to waste soldiers  :P

If the US does not send its troops, then who will guard all those oil wells and gas rigs, most of which are now owned by the American corporations? Anyway that is the #1 priority for the American government.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10731708/Russias-Lukoil-opens-giant-Iraq-oil-field-adding-to-crude-glut.html

Biggest one is owned by a russian company....

Don't you ever get bored with your anti western propaganda?

Lukoil is owned by a Muslim Azerbaijani, who has very close links to some of the American and British politicians. Azeris are one of the best allies of the US, in the FSU region. Real Russian companies such as Rosneft, Tatneft and Bashneft were ignored without any reason in favor of the American companies when the Iraqi fields were distributed.

Twist it lol

Lukoil CEO  is Vagit Alekperov and is an Azerbaijani and Russian businessman and currently a President of the leading Russian oil company LUKOIL. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagit_Alekperov (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagit_Alekperov)  I cannot confirm nor deny US ties

I thought I saw you saying something about Lukoil previously but I coudn't remember where:

Alekperov is having good relations with Putin, as well as with the Western Politicians. That's is why the American/ European sanctions haven't targeted him, even after almost everyone else in the Russian oil / gas sector was affected.