Spoolin

They could have also meant iridium. I believe a bunch of iridium was found around Iran a while back, but could be wrong.

Nothing new, happens all the time.

Nothing new here as far as no update to the rate. This has happened many times and has even went unchanged before for a couple days while currency auctions continued. Sometimes they just miss updating the rate.

Well, I hope whatever they are talking about gets translated correctly and I hope Frank and Delta are correct that its about the RV. Yeah, I figured I'd get a few negs for having some common sense and not jumping to conclusions. LOL

Do you really think that anytime Shabs and Maliki get together it always has to do with an RV of the Iraqi dinar? Shabs...Yes Maliki...What shall we talk about today? Well..Maliki, let's just talk about what we always talk about when we get together...The RV of the dinar..... Gee...What a boring life those 2 must lead if that's all they talk about.

And you know this as truth because......... If you would actually study the things as Scooter does, you would stop listening to your BS contacts. .

I dont listen to any of the Guru's BS and I place DrJ right there along with them with their nonsense. He has just as much nonsense in his "knowledge" on the dinar as the idiot Guru's that claim they know its about to pop. If DrJ would actually read and study what is going on right now as does Scooter, Rudy Conen, Breitling and the like, he wouldnt make nonsense claims as if he knows this will not happen until late 2012. There is WAY too much going on that points to something about to happen in the near future and it's definitely NOT pointing to it taking another year and a half to get done.

Roger, Some one posted in your Rumors section that I stated that the RV will not occur until the euro hits 1.50 because China is the hold up and that is the rate that they are after. That is only one part of the equation. Please post that I am stating that THERE WILL BE NO RV UNTIL LATE 2012. China is one part of the equation but there is another that I am not at liberty to get into at this time. I am saying LATE 2012 even if you see the euro at 1.50. Just for the record, the euro closed at 1.4634 on Friday and Moody’s will most likely be downgrading the USD so it is very likely that we will see the euro at 1.50 in the near future. As Always… Dr. J What makes DrJ think he knows when this will or will not go down? He sure is making an awefully bold claim as if he knows more than anyone else.

Maybe because Obama is a huge hypocrit, liar and flip flopper? In Obama's 2008 presidential campaign, he stated to the American people that Jerusalem would never be divided and Israel would have our support to keep the land the way it now is and Israel wont need to worry. Seems Obama said a lot of things to get peoples vote now doesnt it.... Here is an article on it from the NYSun from back in 2008 on his campaign. You can even watch vidoe's on it if you dont believe what someone wrote in an article. Senator Obama, in his speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, said, "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." The next day, an unnamed adviser tried to "clarify" the statement to suggest it left room for Palestinian sovereignty. On Sunday in a CNN interview, Fareed Zakaria questioned Mr. Obama about his AIPAC speech supporting Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel. Mr. Zakaria asked him, "why not support the Clinton plan, which envisions a divided Jerusalem." Mr. Obama responded, "the truth is that this was an example where we had some poor phrasing in the speech" and a reminder of the need to be "careful in terms of our syntax." He said his point had been "simply" that "we don't want barbed wire running through Jerusalem, similar to the way it was prior to the '67 war. ... I think the Clinton formulation provides a starting point for discussions between the parties." Mr. Obama's new endorsement of the Clinton plan as the "starting point" for negotiations involves much more than a problem in phrasing. He has converted his commitment at AIPAC to an "undivided" Jerusalem into support for the city's redivision. There are at least three reasons why one can conclude that Mr. Obama's turn-around on his position on an "undivided" Jerusalem did not result from "poor phrasing" or careless "syntax" or confusion about a "code word." First, the unambiguous commitment in his AIPAC speech — "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided" — came at the end of a paragraph beginning "Let me be clear." The speech was an important address to a crucial group, intended to convey solidarity on an issue of central concern to the group — which undoubtedly accounted for the thunderous standing ovation it received. It was neither an off-the-cuff remark nor a minor part of the speech. Second, it was not the first time he said it. In January, the American Jewish Committee distributed to all presidential candidates an Election Questionaire and posted the responses on its Web site, without editing them. One of the questions was "How do you see the likely final status of Jerusalem?" Mr. Obama's answer was "Jerusalem will remain Israel's capital, and no one should want or expect it to be re-divided." The answer was as unambiguous as the one he gave 7,000 people at AIPAC five months later. Third, he addressed the issue in 2000 in a position paper on Israel as part of his unsuccessful congressional campaign that year. In that paper, he stated, "Jerusalem should remain united and should be recognized as Israel's capital." When he appeared before AIPAC in June and said "Let me be clear ... [Jerusalem] must remain undivided," Mr. Obama was expressing a view he had formally taken, in writing, on at least two prior occasions, over an eight-year period. His 2000 position paper is particularly important, because the status of Jerusalem was very much an issue around that time. In March 1999, the Israeli Foreign Ministry posted a lengthy position paper on "The Status of Jerusalem." The paper recounted the Jewish claim to Jerusalem extending through 3,000 years of history, noted the city historically had been united prior to the Arab attack in 1948, that the city was reunited in 1967 after another unprovoked Arab attack during the Six-Day War, and that Israel had protected the rights and freedoms of all faiths in the city ever since then. The paper concluded there was a "national consensus" on Israel's sovereignty of a united city. In September 2000, a furor erupted over remarks by U.S. Ambassador Martin Indyk during a ceremony in Jerusalem, where he asserted there was "no other solution but to share the Holy City." The New York Sun's Ira Stoll, at that time the North American editor of the Jerusalem Post, wrote in opinionjournal.com that there was "a recognition across the Israeli political spectrum that a 'shared Jerusalem' is another way of saying a divided Jerusalem." The Jerusalem Post quoted a prominent Knesset member saying the remarks could only be interpreted as a call for "repartitioning" the city. The mayor of Jerusalem, Ehud Olmert, summarily rejected the ambassador's comments. In other words, as of 2000, there was no ambiguity about the meaning of an "undivided Jerusalem." The only "code words" floating around were a "shared Jerusalem," and everyone knew those words related to divided sovereignty over the city that had been united since 1967. Mr. Obama's Sunday interview raises questions about his candor, because his explanation of "poor phrasing" and careless "syntax" seems — at the very least — misleading, given his consistent prior articulations of his position and the definition of "united." But his comments raise an even more important issue. The Clinton Parameters were in fact a partition plan, a last-gasp attempt in December 2000 to bridge the Israeli and Palestinian positions in the final month of the Clinton presidency. President Clinton informed the parties that the parameters were his personal ideas, and if not accepted would be "off the table," and go with him when he left office. Whatever Mr. Obama meant before, what he clearly means now, with his support for the Clinton plan, is the re-division of the city. Mr. Richman edits "Jewish Current Issues."

Predicting the "end of days" is about as nonsensicle as predicting the "revaluation of the dinar".....It cant and wont happen.......Read the Bible....

If the rate is going to be that high, you can count on a redenomination first.

Can you guys not read? Sandy wasnt interested in the movement.....Its the time at which no movement has been going on.....May 9th to the 13th.....And now its against the EUR and the last update there was also May 9th. Get the movement out of your mind and focus on the DATES of NO movement........Something is VERY odd here....

Got it, thanks Sandy. Yeah, that's a little odd.

I dont see a USD/IQD in the instrument.

Can you at least give us some kind of clue as to who this contact is without spilling the beans or maybe how high up they are or something? That way we can possibly presume you're telling the truth about knowing who it is.

LOL I thought she was fired last election......Is she just hanging around and riding O's coat tail now?

Oh, we all know it'll be Mr. Narcissism himself that takes it...........The Big O.

Brings tears to your eyes......

Oh the sarcasm...... I think I'll start a new thread every day from here on out, claiming the RV will happen tomorrow. I'm bound to hit the date one of the days.

Ding ding ding.......We have a winner....... Glad someone else besides myself understands what they read.

You're also forgetting one crucial point..........If they RD, they most likely must RV at the same time at a decent rate of say $1.00. Now, they will have to print and mint all new currency that will cost billions AND......Pay out the new rate of the RV'd currency. How many billions do you believe that may be? Piece both of them together and you just may have expenses in the trillions. Now, they may also just do a straight RV, which seems more plausible, at around $1 and this will also be in the trillions in expenses. What is my point? Its basically a wash either way they go......

Thats not correct........They already have all the denoms printed and have since 2003, only the larger notes are the ones more common right now and in circulation and the rest (the small notes and coins) are sitting in the CBI. If they RV, they only have to pull out the higher denom notes and issue the ALREADY printed and waiting lower denoms. If they RD, they will have to print and mint a whole new set of currency......EVERYTHING......

They will have to introduce a whole new currency and whipe out all their currency they now use if they do what you are suggesting. I dont see that happening.......They cant just drop the zero's from all the currency and then introduce new 50 and 100 notes IMO.

The only possible way they could RD is if they introduced a whole new currency to replace all that is out there now and I honestly dont see them doing this since they always mention lifting, removing, etc. the 000 zero's. Those small bills and coins dont have the 000 zero's. There is not one article out there with Iraq ever mentioning printing a whole new currency post 2003 that I am aware of and thats just what they would have to do, to do any sort of RD. So, what could they really mean? IMO, they are talking about pulling the bills with 000 in as they release more of the lower denoms just before they RV. Its the only thing that makes sense.....

I can explain this very easily.....The price of the dollar has dropped in value tremendously due to the UST printing money like there is no tomorrow to pay for stimulus, tarp, etc. and thats where the 30% difference is coming from.