Thread: Iraq/Dinar News. before Febuary 2nd 2006

Originally Posted by draft138

Based on this then, the dinar would really be revalued to the Euro, which is now 1 Euro = .7679 USD

Apologies for perpetuating this back and forth about the rate and the misconceptions.. but your rate quote above is inverted. Here is the latest from Oanda:

Friday, February 2, 2007
1 Euro = 1.30259 US Dollar
1 US Dollar (USD) = 0.76770 Euro (EUR)

It will only strengthen the exchange value even more for the Euro holders!!!


The coming months will be most exciting ...even to speculate for extensive shopping spree....


YB. - cheers to all for keeping track so others can rest and sleep with confidence...!

Bush to request hefty Iraq war funds By Caren Bohan and Richard Cowan
Thu Feb 1, 6:40 PM ET



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush will request slightly more than $100 billion to cover war operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for the rest of this year and an even larger amount for fiscal 2008 that begins on October 1, congressional sources said on Thursday.

The administration, which will submit the war cost proposals along with its annual budget on Monday, will provide details of its war spending plans to try to placate critics who have accused it of using a shadow budget to fund the war.

For the current fiscal year, the White House will ask Congress to approve an additional $93 billion for the Defense Department to conduct the two wars and about $7 billion for State Department activities, a Senate aide said.

Including other items, the request will total "a little over $100 billion," according to the Senate aide. That would come on top of $70 billion Congress already approved for the wars this year.

For 2008, the administration will ask for an amount "larger than the $100 billion in the fiscal 2007 request," the Senate aide said.

House and Senate aides said the administration was trying to detail the 2008 costs in advance, responding to complaints from Congress about the long line of "emergency" spending bills that have mostly funded the Iraq war since the U.S. invasion in 2003.

BIGGEST SO FAR

At about $100 billion, the fiscal 2007 emergency request would be the biggest so far.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated Bush's planned troop buildup could cost at least double the administration's initial estimate and involve more than twice the number of troops.

The price tag could reach about $13 billion for a four-month mission, the nonpartisan CBO said. The roughly 20,000 combat soldiers Bush said he was going to deploy to Iraq might have to be augmented by 28,000 support troops, it said.

A U.S. defense official said the Pentagon did not believe the CBO's figure for support troops was realistic.

"Our estimate is that it would be far less than their worst-case scenario," commented the official, who said he would not comment on the record or offer an alternative figure as military planners were still working on their estimates.

In January, the Bush administration estimated a cost of $5.6 billion to dispatch 21,500 troops.

A Bush administration official said details of both years' war spending proposals would be provided in the budget book outlining the 2008 spending plans.

It also will include a forecast for war spending in fiscal 2009 but not beyond that. "That's about as far out as you can realistically project," the official said.

In a letter to Bush in December, three lawmakers said the use of emergency bills had created an "ever-expanding shadow budget" that was obscuring Congress's oversight process and skewing budget deficit projections.

It was signed by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (news, bio, voting record) of North Dakota and House of Representatives Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt (news, bio, voting record) of South Carolina, both Democrats, and New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg (news, bio, voting record), senior Budget Committee Republican.

Administration officials say they do not object to greater transparency but are using emergency bills to avoid having the costs viewed as part of the Pentagon's permanent budget. If such costs were incorporated into the main Pentagon budget, it would be politically difficult to scale them back when it is time to do so.

But the Bush administration hopes plenty of details on the spending plans will satisfy congressional demands.

"We're going to try to be much more transparent on the costs of the war," White House spokesman Tony Snow told reporters

Bush allies scramble to stop Iraq policy defections
POSTED: 11:17 p.m. EST, February 1, 2007
Story Highlights• Bush allies plead for fellow Republicans to give new Iraq plan a chance
• Republican, Democrats agree on nonbinding resolution against troop increase
• McCain says any resolution opposing Iraq strategy is counterproductive
• Liberal senators oppose resolution, saying it doesn't go far enough

Adjust font size:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A day after Senate Democrats and a leading Republican reached agreement on a resolution "disagreeing" with the president's new Iraq strategy, Bush allies scrambled Thursday to prevent more Republican defections.

The compromise, announced late Wednesday, builds critical momentum for a proposal backed by Sen. John Warner, R-Virginia, the influential former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and it increases the chances that the measure can earn the 60 votes needed to shut down a filibuster.

It also sidelines a more strongly worded resolution backed by two powerful Democrats: Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee; and Joe Biden, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. Levin quickly came to the Senate floor Wednesday evening to say he supported the Warner resolution.

The Senate is expected to take up the resolution late Monday.

Tuesday, at a closed-door meeting of Democratic senators, a "strong consensus" developed that Democrats should back the Warner measure, according to Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the chamber.

The deal was sealed after Warner agreed to add language from a number of competing resolutions to his own, including a paragraph stating that Congress should avoid cutting funding for the troops. (Watch what worth a nonbinding resolution might have )

'A dangerous message to our enemies'
The agreement caused one senator to lash out at fellow Republicans who were backing the measure.

"I believe they send a dangerous message to our enemies," Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Kentucky, said.

Another Bush ally pleaded for patience.

"Years ago I used to see bumper stickers that said 'Give peace a chance,' " Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Arizona, said. "I think today we need to dust off some of those bumper stickers and write a couple of words that say give the president's plan for peace a chance."

And a third Republican who has been a strong voice on the need to continue the war in Iraq, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, called any resolution opposing the administration's strategy counterproductive.

"This is a degree of micromanagement which is absolutely Orwellian," McCain said. "That alone should cause us to reject this kind of foolishness."

Another Bush supporter, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, said the Warner resolution would be a vote of no confidence in Gen. David Petraeus, the incoming commander of U.S. and allied troops in Iraq. And McCain, who has blasted the Bush administration's handling of the war, said his proposal is a sign the United States is willing to go "all in" in the now-unpopular conflict.

"It gets down to whether you support what is being done in this new strategy or you don't," McCain said. "You can put lipstick on a pig, [but] it's still a pig, in my view."

Protests from the left
The Democratic leadership agreed to support the Warner-Levin resolution so that a large majority of senators from both parties would support the anti-war language. But in doing so the leadership may have lose the support of its left flank.

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, said he opposes the resolution. In a written statement Thursday, Feingold said the Warner resolution "misunderstands the situation in Iraq and shortchanges our national security interests."

"The resolution rejects redeploying U.S. troops and supports moving a misguided military strategy from one part of Iraq to another," said Feingold, who wants U.S. troops to leave Iraq. "The American people have rejected the president's Iraq strategy, and it's time for Congress to end our military involvement in this war."

Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut also said he opposed the Warner-Levin resolution.

"Despite this resolution that may pass, the White House has no intention of paying any attention to what we're suggesting here," Dodd told reporters. "If that's the case, then why not force them to pay some attention to what we say up here? This is the United States Senate; this is not a city council somewhere."

Dodd has proposed binding legislation that would cap the number of troops in Iraq at current levels. The Warner-Levin nonbinding measure states only that the Senate "disagrees" with Bush's troop increase, which is already being implemented.

"I'd rather there be 50 votes or 45 votes for something meaningful that sends a clear message than 80 votes for something that has less value at this point," Dodd said.

However, other liberal Democrats -- including Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa -- say they will support the resolution, and Senate Democrats are are confident most will at least vote to allow the resolution to be debated

Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, who also is running for her party's 2008 presidential nomination, told CNN late Thursday that she would support the Warner-Levin resolution "to send the strongest possible signal" to the White House

Top U.S. Iraq commander says has laid path to success By Andrew Gray
Thu Feb 1, 3:06 PM ET



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The top U.S. commander in Iraq defended his record on Thursday after scathing criticism in Congress, declaring he had laid the foundations for success and his strategy had made progress in a tough environment.

ADVERTISEMENT

"I do not believe that the current policy has failed," Gen. George Casey told the U.S. Senate's Armed Services Committee, meeting to consider his nomination to be U.S. Army chief of staff.

Tens of thousands of Iraqis and over 3,000 U.S. troops have died in Iraq since U.S.-led forces invaded in 2003 and toppled Saddam Hussein. American forces now are battling a stubborn insurgency amid widespread concerns about Iraq sliding into sectarian civil war.

Even President George W. Bush referred to the Iraq policy under Casey as a "maybe a slow failure" last month as he made his case for his new plan to send in an additional 21,000 troops.

Democratic Michigan Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), the committee's chairman, asked Casey if he agreed with Bush's assessment. After a pause, the general replied: "I actually don't see it as a slow failure. I actually see it as slow progress."

Arizona Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), a front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, said he did not question Casey's patriotism and honor, but declared: "I question seriously the judgment that was employed in your execution of your responsibilities in Iraq."

He accused Casey of presenting "unrealistically rosy" assessments during his 2 1/2 years in Iraq and pursuing a strategy that used too few troops and relied too heavily on transferring responsibilities to Iraqi security forces.

Bush said last month he would send 21,500 additional U.S. troops to Iraq in an effort to get a grip on sectarian killings, insurgent attacks and other violence.

"It took us a long time to get where we are today," McCain said, describing the situation as "dire and deteriorating."

"We have paid a very heavy price in American blood and treasure," said McCain, a supporter of the war who backs Bush's plan to raise troop levels but questions whether his proposed increase will be sufficient.

'MY STRATEGY'

Casey said his strategy had made progress. He noted that Iraqi forces were responsible for security in three of the country's 18 provinces and said they were on track to be in charge nationwide by November.

"The strategy that I articulated here today is my strategy and I believe in it," Casey said.

"It may not have produced the results on the timelines that people expected or wanted. But I do believe that it has laid the foundation for our ultimate success in Iraq."

Several senators asked Casey if he truly supported Bush's plan, as the general requested two extra combat brigades for Baghdad, not the five the president wants. Casey said the three further brigades would allow more flexibility and be deployed over time so they could be stopped if they were not required.

That suggested at least a difference in emphasis from his designated successor, Gen. David Petraeus, who has asked for all the extra forces to be deployed as quickly as possible.

Under the new plan, U.S. forces will be more actively involved in bringing security to Baghdad.

Another Republican, Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record) of South Carolina, also expressed frustration at Casey's relatively upbeat assessment of Iraq. "It's almost like I'm hearing two different wars being described here," he said, contrasting Casey's testimony with recent statements by Petraeus and Adm. William Fallon, in line to become the top U.S. commander for the Middle East.

If confirmed, Casey would replace Gen. Peter Schoomaker as Army chief of staff. Schoomaker is retiring.

Economic:the revitalization of the Iraqi trade with the countries of the world,
Baghdad-Sabah
02.02.07

The Ministry of Commerce has prepared a program to revitalize bilateral relations but Qatsadeh and trade with the countries of the world and benefit from your mother Anyatha. An official source in the ministry in a press statement : "The Department of Foreign Economic Relations of e of the ministry prepared a

Would upgrading economic ties Iraq wa the trade with the countries of the world on the basis of mutual benefit e, in addition to relations with the countries that stopped Ula Kaya with Iraq after 1990. " He added : "There are steps within the ministry's policy for the current year to change Nsek efforts of ministries and bodies of Iraqi Ilaq e with international organizations and international companies to standardize pw got to serve the development of bilateral trade and the national economy ."

On the other hand, the ministry assigned some international companies competent examination goods to examine the foodstuffs in the loading ports in the b Lid established jointly with the Iraqi technical tables to ensure the supply of high quality materials. The Almusdrali : "The import in the ministry would refrain from Walsh behind equipped prove mediocrity of their goods. " He explained : "censorship by commercial agents and follow Alenagh Lin to ensure that the replacement of material processed. "

Translated version of http://www.alsabaah.com/paper.php?source=akbar&page=37

Originally Posted by SimplyD

Thank you so much for understanding my point.
From my standpoint this has nothing to do with math, it is merely
about moving a decimal point.

It is possible that one day that 1NID could eventually = $1.29USD

Well, since it is merely about moving the decimal point, I would have voted for moving it to $1.47 USD when the dinar was at 1470 to 1......

Or, lets just pick $3.00, even better.

Personally, if the reval amount is going to be set, I think the CBI is going to just choose the rate anyway, so why the heck not. $3.00 it is, did you get that Shabs? Math sucks anyway. You got till next week 2/7/01 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, now don't be late. Go Shabs, go. Woo Hoo party, party, party....







Heh, yummy cough medicine... Makes me feel so good. Night, night.

Originally Posted by scottpaye

I am a fan of your posts, thank you for them.

There is no "the forex". All exchanges are privately held or publicly held companies. They are in business for profit. As with any business, risk is an issue. If a currency is too risky to deal in, no company who acts as a foreign exchange will take it on. A foreign exchange acts as the seller to the buyer and a buyer to the seller. In other words, there is a bit of a, and I use the word very loosely, guaranty, that the exchange will buy back when you want to sell and will sell when you want to buy. The SEC and the CFTC regulates this stuff. There is no central authority waiting to decide whether to admit the Dinar onto its exchange. There are only private (versus government) businesses deciding whether or not to take on the Dinar. To date, no private company (read the "forex") has been willing to take on the Dinar. There is obviously very good reason for this This is where WE come in. We are real speculators. We serve an irreplacible function in economics. We all know that we can loose everything, yet here we are. We are here even when the mechanism for speculation, "the forex" is too afraid (read, risk averse). This is the absolute cutting edge of investing, the ultimate in speculation - it is us.

As an eternal student of economics (which I have taught at the college level, and which I know to be a study of human behavior) we shall prevail. Go Dinar.

Scott Paye

In this case, we are the street, or in other words, the BLACK MARKET (not implying illegal, just implying unorganized, as in private transactions). We are just on a different street than the local haji dealer. EBAY is a big street eh, and now the banks are even selling to us. It is interesting and kinda fun.

Posted by: nakr2004 on Friday, February 02, 2007 - 10:40 AM

Iraq-WTO
Conference discusses Iraq's joining of WTO
By Hadi al-Hadi
Amman, Feb 2, (VOI) – A conference in the Jordanian capital Amman discussed on Thursday Iraq's joining of the World Trade Organization (WTO).
Held by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in tandem with the Iraqi-U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Industry, under the aegis of Microsoft, the 1st preparatory conference on Iraq's accession to WTO focused on the issue of investment in Iraq, which was approved by the Iraqi parliament.
"The meeting reviewed new investment opportunities and Iraq's accession to the WTO as member, not as an observer as is the case now," Greg Howell, Global Development Alliance Advisor USAID/Iraq, told the independent news agency Voices of Iraq (VOI).
Howell said "by the end of February Iraq will attend its first session with the WTO," noting he had met several times with Iraqi officials and ministers concerned, which is part of the USAID's activities."
"We are now working with Iraqi banks to practice up-to-date banking as well as laying guarantees for loans," said the USAID official.
He pointed out that the USAID's objectives through working with the Iraqi government envisage increasing the number of investment companies, creating jobs for unemployed Iraqis, laying the foundations for an investment climate that would benefit the Iraqi government and making it easy for international companies to come to Iraq.
The meeting was attended by representatives from the Iraqi ministries of trade and foreign affairs as well as Iraqi companies and foreign investors.

Originally Posted by Hope Full

Febuary NEXT, does that mean NEXT Febuary or this Febuary being on the 1st????

Could it be that it reads 'at the end of February' and the word 'next' forms part of the next sentence.