Thread: Iraq/Dinar News. (before Jan.20,2007)

Think We're Losing Iraq? Take a Look at the Dinar
By YOUSSEF IBRAHIM
January 19, 2007


War rages in Iraq. America is preparing to launch an offensive in Baghdad, Iranians are infiltrating the country, and, according to the United Nations, civilians in Iraq are dying at a rate of 100 people a day.

Yet the Iraqi currency is rising in value.

Tuesday, the rate of exchange had reached 1,308 dinars to the American dollar — up from 1,470 last November. Money changers in Baghdad say they cannot keep up with the demand and that Iraqis who used to hang on to their American dollars for dear life are rushing to exchange them.

What gives?

The answers are as murky as anything in Iraq, and the actions of both good and bad guys seem to be helping the dinar.

Continued
1 | 2 | 3 | Next »

Think We're Losing Iraq? Take a Look at the Dinar - January 19, 2007 - The New York Sun





Think We're Losing Iraq? Take a Look at the Dinar - January 19, 2007 - The New York Sun

Posted by: nadioshka on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 01:57 PM

Baghdad-Oil
Final oil draft law to be referred to cabinet next week
Baghdad, Jan 19, (VOI) – The final oil draft law will be referred to the Iraqi cabinet for endorsement and then to parliament to enact a legislation after discussing it, Iraq's oil minister said.
"The draft had won the unanimous approval of parliament's energy committee after certain amendments were introduced," Hussein al-Shahrestani said in a statement received by the independent news agency Voices of Iraq (VOI) on Thursday.
"Revenues from oil sales will go to one fund to be distributed to Iraqis in all provinces in proportionate with the population rate," the statement read, noting "the law will give a kiss of life to the national oil company, which will be in charge of developing the oil fields and increasing production and exports.
Shahrestani pointed out that the law would "allow world major oil companies to get contracts to develop fields to Iraq's benefit."
"Competition is open for all and the nationality of companies would not be an issue provided that they are technologically qualified to develop our oil fields as soon as possible," said Shahrestani.
He said the draft law has consolidated oil policies and plans for balanced development all over Iraqi areas.
The Iraqi oil minister said: "All parties are in agreement and there are no differences with the brothers in Kurdistan in this respect."
"The law has laid accurate and clear controls that any contract not bringing the highest benefit to Iraq would be brushed aside," said Shahrestani, adding "all contracts, whether those concluded during the era of the former regime or in Iraqi Kurdistan region, will be re-reviewed in light of this law."

January 19, 2007
How do we know if we are winning or losing in Iraq?
By Greg Richards

How do we know if we are winning or losing in Iraq?


We know that the MSM has a very dangerous model - "if it bleeds, it leads." The definition of "news" is biased toward the unpleasant and the bizarre. That may be understandable for domestic news. We all live in the U.S. and thus can judge for ourselves the "default condition" of day-to-day life. It is not necessary to report the cars that didn't crash or the babies that were born because in some sense we are aware of them.


But when we must rely on the MSM for our understanding of Iraq, knowledge of the default condition is absent. In Iraq, the U.S. is engaged in a great project. The real news is how we are faring in this project - are we succeeding or are we failing? To understand that, we need to understand the default condition of life in Iraq and the trend of that default condition - is it improving for most people or is it deteriorating?


Under the circumstance of our lack of context, while bad news is important, good news is even more important. We need to weigh both good and bad, not merely note the leading bleeding. The net amount of good news will determine the success of the venture.


But the MSM does not see it as its duty or role to report good news - the schools opened, the hospitals repaired, the water delivered. They do not want to be pollyannas - if the default condition of Iraq is indeed characterized by bad news, then we want to know that; but is it?


Fortunately, this is 2007, not 1967. We are no longer completely dependent on the MSM to assemble the mosaic of the default condition of the society for which we have gone to war. With some effort, we can assemble the mosaic ourselves - yes, imperfectly, yes inevitably requiring judgment, but also with sources who have no ax to grind, or much less of one than we now know that MSM did in the 1960's or does now.


In that spirit, Michelle Malkin is back from her imbed in Baghdad, and is now starting to report on her experiences, along with her colleague Bryan Preston, who contributes an essay covering several issues on the Iraq War. Not to be missed, Michelle's first report on Hot Air.


Iraq The Model reports that the insurgents may already be skedaddling from Baghdad in anticipation of both the surge of American troops and the change in the rules of engagement. Yes, we all appreciate that this is mixed news as it signals that the bad guys may try to avoid engagement now and wait us out. But to the extent that it is true, it puts the lie to the criticism that the additional 20,000 troops is just a "drop in the bucket" and is a hopeless move that will only get more Americans killed. They may think that in Washington; apparently they don't think that "on the other side of the mountain" in Baghdad.


Are we winning or losing in Iraq? We are going to have to assemble the mosaic for ourselves. To do this, we need a model. It seems pretty clear that the Bush Administration had the wrong model for Iraq when we embarked on the war. It seems likely that the Administration believed that Iraq was a functioning society onto which had been grafted a terror regime - remove the regime and, within reason, the normal processes of the society would reassert themselves and we could go home. That turned out to be the wrong model. Michelle Malkin and Bryan Preston help with this analysis, suggesting that the decades of terror have had the effect of disintegrating the society, making it impossible for people to take responsibility for themselves and to plan for the future. Which means rebuilding is really building. A tough, long term job.


But if that is the case, then it means that there may never be a climax or a climactic battle to this war. Perhaps what will happen is that various parts of Iraq - both geographically and then socially, politically and economically - will gradually come to life. Yes, the forces of destruction will try to prevent this for various reasons - ideological in the case of al-Qaeda, power and sectarianism in the case of the confessional communities - and progress may be difficult to see.


But it may be what is not bleeding is what should be leading - that the not bleeding will gradually exceed the bleeding and the normal processes of human nature assert themselves. Ollie North thinks we may be observing this in al-Anbar with the surge in volunteering for the Iraqi Police there.


And, here at AT, we have been calling attention to the remarkable surge in the value of the Iraqi dinar, now up 13% since early September and on increasing dollar volume in recent days (scroll down to the bottom). American Thinker: How do we know if we are winning or losing in Iraq?

tentative deal is in the works to share Iraq's oil money when and if it starts coming in, according to Reuters. Kai Ryssdal talked with Alistair MacDonald, Reuters' Baghdad bureau chief, about the plan.

TEXT OF INTERVIEW

KAI RYSSDAL: There are, and this is just a guess, thousands of things that have to happen before Iraq starts making the money it should from its oil fields. But Reuters is reporting today there's a tentative deal to share that money when and if it starts coming in.

We called Alistair MacDonald, the Reuters bureau chief in Baghdad, earlier today. I asked him if this agreement might eventually become law.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ALISTAIR MACDONALD: There is fairly broad support. The committee that has drafted it is . . . does represent pretty much all the major political factions in Parliament. So, that gets it off on a good start. At this stage, certainly we don't see surprises with people come backing out of it now.

RYSSDAL: What does this law have to say about how oil revenues are going to be distributed internally among the various regions and sides?

MACDONALD: Mmmm. Well it's very clear in the sense that they say it will be distributed to different provinces and regions, according to their population. And that remains something of a possible controversy, because nobody is very sure what the population of Iraq is, or what the populations of the different provinces are. It's been a long time since there was a census, and so . . . and there's been a lot of population movement with the security problems that we've seen. But it is fairly clear that the central government will be the key player centralizing revenue and then distributing it.

RYSSDAL: What does the law have to say about the role of foreign oil companies coming in and getting the oil out of the ground?

MACDONALD: Well, it basically says, "Come one, come all." They want foreigners to come and help. They want investment. They need technology. There have been decades of neglect and problems for the Iraqi oil industry. Some vast potential industries, the third-biggest known reserve, possibly bigger. They want foreigners to come in.

What it doesn't do is spell out the exact terms on which foreigners can come in. We already know from a previous piece of legislation that foreigners are not entitled to own the oil. That is clearly owned by the Iraqi state. But they are going to be offered deals to share in the profits as a reward for their exploration and exploitation of these fields.

But what this law doesn't do — and it's something that the foreign oil companies are already waiting to see before they're prepared to start seriously getting into talking about spending money in Iraq — is just how much of a share of profits foreign oil companies are going to be offered in order to tempt them into this very difficult environment.

RYSSDAL: Are they going to come unless that difficult environment gets a lot more secure?

MACDONALD: Clearly not. I mean, we talked today to some of the big Western oil companies. They're saying, "Look, you know, nobody's gonna come if our employees and our contractors are gonna be abducted, shot or killed. It's good that they're solving these legal problems, but until they solve the security problem, we're not interested."

But there are, on the other hand . . . We've seen big interest already from countries that are keen for oil and are, perhaps, in the view of some Western executives anyway, a little bit less concerned about the security risks. The Russians have already been long-involved in Iraqi oil. And the Indians, too, have very, you know, big and growing energy needs, and are close by and they're also going to be interested. So, the security is a big issue, but it may . . . differently for different companies.

RYSSDAL: Alistair MacDonald is the Baghdad bureau chief for the Reuters news agency. Reuters reports today that there's a deal that's been reached among Iraqi officials to share Iraqi oil revenues. Mr. MacDonald, thanks a lot for your time.

A plan for the flow of Iraq's oil money | Iraq Updates

Originally Posted by archangel

January 19, 2007
How do we know if we are winning or losing in Iraq?
By Greg Richards

How do we know if we are winning or losing in Iraq?


We know that the MSM has a very dangerous model - "if it bleeds, it leads." The definition of "news" is biased toward the unpleasant and the bizarre. That may be understandable for domestic news. We all live in the U.S. and thus can judge for ourselves the "default condition" of day-to-day life. It is not necessary to report the cars that didn't crash or the babies that were born because in some sense we are aware of them.


But when we must rely on the MSM for our understanding of Iraq, knowledge of the default condition is absent. In Iraq, the U.S. is engaged in a great project. The real news is how we are faring in this project - are we succeeding or are we failing? To understand that, we need to understand the default condition of life in Iraq and the trend of that default condition - is it improving for most people or is it deteriorating?


Under the circumstance of our lack of context, while bad news is important, good news is even more important. We need to weigh both good and bad, not merely note the leading bleeding. The net amount of good news will determine the success of the venture.


But the MSM does not see it as its duty or role to report good news - the schools opened, the hospitals repaired, the water delivered. They do not want to be pollyannas - if the default condition of Iraq is indeed characterized by bad news, then we want to know that; but is it?


Fortunately, this is 2007, not 1967. We are no longer completely dependent on the MSM to assemble the mosaic of the default condition of the society for which we have gone to war. With some effort, we can assemble the mosaic ourselves - yes, imperfectly, yes inevitably requiring judgment, but also with sources who have no ax to grind, or much less of one than we now know that MSM did in the 1960's or does now.


In that spirit, Michelle Malkin is back from her imbed in Baghdad, and is now starting to report on her experiences, along with her colleague Bryan Preston, who contributes an essay covering several issues on the Iraq War. Not to be missed, Michelle's first report on Hot Air.


Iraq The Model reports that the insurgents may already be skedaddling from Baghdad in anticipation of both the surge of American troops and the change in the rules of engagement. Yes, we all appreciate that this is mixed news as it signals that the bad guys may try to avoid engagement now and wait us out. But to the extent that it is true, it puts the lie to the criticism that the additional 20,000 troops is just a "drop in the bucket" and is a hopeless move that will only get more Americans killed. They may think that in Washington; apparently they don't think that "on the other side of the mountain" in Baghdad.


Are we winning or losing in Iraq? We are going to have to assemble the mosaic for ourselves. To do this, we need a model. It seems pretty clear that the Bush Administration had the wrong model for Iraq when we embarked on the war. It seems likely that the Administration believed that Iraq was a functioning society onto which had been grafted a terror regime - remove the regime and, within reason, the normal processes of the society would reassert themselves and we could go home. That turned out to be the wrong model. Michelle Malkin and Bryan Preston help with this analysis, suggesting that the decades of terror have had the effect of disintegrating the society, making it impossible for people to take responsibility for themselves and to plan for the future. Which means rebuilding is really building. A tough, long term job.


But if that is the case, then it means that there may never be a climax or a climactic battle to this war. Perhaps what will happen is that various parts of Iraq - both geographically and then socially, politically and economically - will gradually come to life. Yes, the forces of destruction will try to prevent this for various reasons - ideological in the case of al-Qaeda, power and sectarianism in the case of the confessional communities - and progress may be difficult to see.


But it may be what is not bleeding is what should be leading - that the not bleeding will gradually exceed the bleeding and the normal processes of human nature assert themselves. Ollie North thinks we may be observing this in al-Anbar with the surge in volunteering for the Iraqi Police there.


And, here at AT, we have been calling attention to the remarkable surge in the value of the Iraqi dinar, now up 13% since early September and on increasing dollar volume in recent days (scroll down to the bottom). American Thinker: How do we know if we are winning or losing in Iraq?

Good article Arch-
More and more postive articles coming out and also referencing the dinar. Reval or experience the feeding frenzy! I think we win regardless!!

Current Sadri announced his return to the government and parliament on Monday

(صوت العراق) - 19-01-2007(Voice of Iraq) - 19-01-2007
ارسل هذا الموضوع لصديقThis issue was sent to a friend

التيار الصدري يعلن عن عودته الى الحكومة والبرلمان الاثنين المقبلCurrent Sadri announced his return to the government and parliament next Monday.

سياسي/عراق/صدري/عودةPolitical / Iraq / am / return
التيار الصدري يعلن عن عودته الى الحكومة والبرلمان الاثنين المقبلCurrent Sadri announced his return to the government and parliament next Monday.

بغداد - 19 - 1 (كونا) -- اعلن التيار الصدري اليوم عن انه سينهي تعليق عضوية نوابه في البرلمان العراقي وعودة وزرائه الستة الى العمل في الحكومة العراقية يوم الاثنين المقبل بالرغم من اعتقال زعيم صدري بارز منه.Baghdad-1-19 (KUNA) -- Current Sadri announced today that it will end the suspension of the deputies in the Iraqi Parliament and the return of his six to work in the Iraqi government next Monday despite the arrest of a prominent leader of my chest.

وقال النائب عن الكتلة الصدرية في البرلمان العراقي فلاح حسن شنشل في تصريح لوكالة الانباء الكويتية (كونا) هنا "سنعود يوم الاثنين الذي سيكون اول ايام الدوام الرسمي في الاسبوع المقبل الى البرلمان وسيعود وزراء التيار الصدري الستة الى العمل وان اعتقال الشيخ عبد الهادي الدراجي لن يؤثر على قرارنا بالعودة لكننا نشدد على اطلاق سراحه فورا".The deputy said the bloc chest of the Iraqi Parliament Falah Hassan Chanchal in a statement to Kuwait News Agency (KUNA) here "will return on Monday will be the first day of official business in the next week and will return to the parliament and six ministers of the Sadri movement to work and the arrest of Sheikh Abdel Hadi al-Daraji, will not affect our decision to return, but we stress released immediately."

واعتبر شنشل ان اعتقال القوات الامريكية للشيخ عبد الهادي الدراجي واثنين من مرافقيه "انتهاك صارخ لحقوق الانسان ومحاولة لجر التيار الصدري لمواجهة مسلحة".He said Chanchal that American forces arrested Sheikh Abdel Hadi al-Daraji, and two of his companions "flagrant violation of human rights and an attempt to drag the Sadri movement of armed confrontation."

وقال ان الغاية من اعتقال الشيخ الدراجي هي خلق الفوضى واثارة ازمة كاشفا عن انه اجرى اتصالا بوزير الدفاع العراقي عبد القادر محمد جاسم الذي ابلغه بعدم علمه بامر اعتقال الشيخ الدراجي.He said that the purpose of the arrest of Sheikh Darraji is to create chaos and provoke a crisis by revealing that he had contacted the Iraqi Defense Minister Abdul Qader Mohammed Jassim who informed him that knowledge of the arrest Sheikh Darraji.

واضاف ان الاعتقال "خرق للتفاهم الذي حصل بيننا وبين الحكومة حيث تم الاتفاق على وقف الاعتداءات التي يتعرض لها التيار الصدري".He added that the arrest "a breach of the understanding that happened between us and the government, where it was agreed to halt attacks against Sadri trend."

وكانت القوات متعددة الجنسيات اعلنت اليوم في بيان لها قيام قوات خاصة من الجيش العراقي باعتقال زعيم مجموعة مسلحة غير شرعية استنادا الى معلومات استخبارية موثوقة اثناء عمليات نفذت مع مستشارين من القوات الدولية دون ان تشير صراحة الى اسم الشيخ عبدالهادي الدراجي لكن مصادر امنية عراقية اكدت ان المعتقل هو نفسه الشيخ الدراجي.The multinational forces announced today in a statement released by the special forces of the Iraqi army arrested the leader of an illegal armed group on the basis of credible intelligence information during operations carried out with the advisers of the international forces without referring explicitly to the name of Sheikh Hadi Darraji But Iraqi security sources confirmed that the detained is the same Sheikh Darraji.

TEHRAN, Jan 19 (Reuters) - Iran said on Friday it would soon lodge a complaint with the U.N. Security Council about the arrest by U.S. troops of five Iranians, who Washington says were backing militants in Iraq but who Tehran says are diplomats.

U.S. soldiers seized the men in a raid on an Iranian government office in the northern Iraqi city of Arbil on Jan. 11, hours after U.S. President George W. Bush pledged to crack down on the "flow of support" from Iran to Iraqi militants.

Washington regularly accuses Iran of encouraging violence in Iraq, a charge Tehran dismisses saying the U.S. occupiers are destabilising the country. Iran has demanded the immediate release of the Iranians.

"Soon we will complain to the Security Council and the United Nations for this adventurism by America," Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said on state television.

He did not say when Iran would take such a step.

"Instead of securing Iraq, America is following heathen aims," he said, adding that the United States wanted "to make regional countries face off with Iran".

Tehran accuses Washington of trying to line up nearby Arab countries, who are dominated by Sunni Muslims, against Iran, which like Iraq has a Shi'ite Muslim majority.

The arrest on Jan. 11, the second such detention in a month, have heightened tensions between Washington and Tehran, already at loggerheads over Iran's nuclear programme which U.S. officials say is aimed at making atomic bombs

US official says Kirkuk public referendum is an Iraqi issue

POL-TURKEY-US-BURNS
US official says Kirkuk public referendum is an Iraqi issue

ANKARA, Jan 19 (KUNA) -- Turkish Prime Minister Recept Tayyip Erdogan expressed on Friday concern at developments in Iraq during a meeting with visiting US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns.

During the meeting, Erdogan stressed on importance of delaying the public referendum in Kirkuk, when Burns reiterated Kirkuk is an Iraqi issue.

Turkish media, covering the meeting which took place in Turkish Parliament headquarters, said while Burns showed understanding regarding the Kirkuk issue, he said Iraq is an independent country and its up to the Iraqi people to decide on the public referendum.

Burns also affirmed Washington's stance in support for Ankara regarding the conflict against the Kurdish rebel organization, the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK).

On Thursday, Turkey praised a raid by U.S. and Iraqi forces on a refugee camp of Turkish Kurds in northern Iraq "as a first step towards combating Kurdish rebels" but insisted the camp must be shut down.

Iraqi and U.S. troops conducted a search operation on Wednesday at the Makhmur refugee camp in northern Iraq, which Ankara has long argued provides a safe haven for militants from the PKK.(end) tb.

mb
KUNA 191357 Jan 07NNNN

Originally Posted by Cdn Scrooge

I noticed that as well. What came to my mind was one of his favourite sayings..."things that make you go hmmmmmmmmm". I'm not about to step in and take sides, or anything like that, since I personally have no knowledge of what went on or was said in pms. However, I am sitting back and reading everything with a little more cautious (for lack of a better word) perspective. I really don't know why he felt it necessary to post that info on another site anyway. It has nothing whatsoever to do with them. If he wants to air his greivances in public then it should have been done here, where the problems occurred. Although, in his defence, he may have felt that he wouldn't have been allowed to express them here.

Please note that comment is not a slam against him because I think he is wrong in his opinion ( as I said I don't know whether he is or isn't) it is merely an expression of my disappointment in him for the way he went about airing it.

I really do not want to see this forum fall apart over family type petty bickering. I have noticed that there are a lot of people who were regular posters on here prior to all the ddos crap that appear to be missing for some reason. I really wish that we could, as a group, get back to where we were about 3 weeks ago. I don't want to have to visit 3 or 4 different forums to get info and updates. We had it all right here and it would be nice if we could get it back.

youre right. im sorry i mentioned it as i should have just let everyone determine on their own.

nor do i want these things to happen. i have gotten hate pms because of this and all i gotta say is i bad mouth iif because i was beaten to a pulp over there and i feel as if that forum deserves the bad press. never once did a mod step up to stop that or offer a better way to discuss it. they simply made more threads for me to be ripped up on as it sold copy. (and for whoever didnt like the things i said to steph, at least i was honest.)

i have nothing against adam personally but to sit here and bad mouth iif then go there and say worse things about here was out of line. right after posting here no less. if this is such a horrible forum then one would think you wouldnt want to post here.

Originally Posted by worf

Quote:
Originally Posted by shotgunsusie
for those members who respect and admire adster i wanted to make mention of the fact that some of our members went to ignorant investors fighting and he was slammin this forum BAD. said the good posters here needed to wake up, i.e. like the ones who are good at posting need to be leavin here. said rol is a joke.

makes me reconsider my personal views moreso than i already had.

yeah yeah, i know its in the wrong place but it will get seen and i think everyone should be aware of wolves among the herd.





I don't want to get into a major mud slinging contest either. But I do want to make known my personal observation. There appears to me to a lot of immaturity going on in all directions. We need a Rodney King moment "Can't we all just get along?"

worf

Praise in PUBLIC and Criticize in PRIVATE