Freedomrules

Bonds are debt!

So what happened TLAR? Iraq signed a contract with Japan on two loans worth $ 735 million Baghdad / term The Ministry of Finance, on Monday, with Japan a final contract for energy and sanitation valued at $ 735 million, while the Japanese side confirmed that it was considering necessary to contribute to the reconstruction of the liberated areas plans. Said Finance Minister Hoshyar Zebari at a press conference in the ministry building on the sidelines of the signing of the contract with the Japanese Agency "JICA" head Shuhei Hara and I followed the "long", he said that "Iraq has signed with Japan in the final two loans facilitators of energy and sanitation valued at $ 735 million," noting that "the first loan worth $ 450 million was allocated to electricity projects the reconstruction of the building sub-power stations in the center and south, and by concessional interest rates and repayment period of 20 years including 6 years grace." Zebari said, "The second loan of $ 285 million will be allocated for the reconstruction projects Sanitation in Arbil, "explaining that" the benefit of this loan will also be a facilitator and the period of repayment of 40 years including 10 years grace. " He pointed Zebari that "the Japanese government stood with Iraq and provided valuable and development aid since 2003 and until now, one of our key partners in re the reconstruction of Iraq, "pointing out that" loans, which was signed them yesterday is 22 and 23 of the Japanese loan. " For his part, President of the Japanese Agency "JICA" said Shuhei Hara, "The loan provided to project power in Iraq would improve the energy transfer processes and stability, especially in the center and south, "noting that aid not only on humanitarian needs are limited, but on education and the provision of housing and the preservation of cultural heritage." said Shuhei Hara, that "Japan is also studying the necessary plans to contribute to the reconstruction of liberated areas" is noteworthy that the Ministry of Finance signed on 25 May, a contract initially with Japan on the two loans facilitators of energy and sanitation. The Minister of Transport Baqir al-Zubaidi, Sunday (24 May 2015), the second loan with Japan worth $ 325 million signatures, and among it would be dedicated to the development of the port of Khor Al-Zubair , he stressed that would be repaid over 40 years. http://almadapaper.n... Read more: http://dinarvets.com/forums/index.php?/topic/204877-iraq-signed-a-contract-with-japan-on-two-loans-worth-735-million/#ixzz3eZg8MnLH

SL : Crash of Iraqi F 16 aircraft represents a US-message pointing that Iraqi pilots are not qualified. 26/06/2015 14:38 Baghdad / NINA /--MP, Ali al-Adib head of the parliamentary bloc of the State of Law coalition headed by former PM ,Nuri al-Maliki said : "The F/16 aircraft crash dedicated to Iraq within the US arms deal is not a merely simple military accident but is an American message saying that Iraqi pilots are not qualified for such a type of aircraft . Adib pointed out that this accident targets to delay the delivery of the aircraft to Iraq, that the incident meet the desire of certain Iraqi parties / unnamed / who do not want to complete arming of Iraqi army, despite the escalation of terrorism in Iraq. Adib said in a statement today: "This incident came in conjunction with the proximity of the aircraft delivery to Iraq after a long procrastination by US and many difficulties with Washington ./End http://ninanews.com/Website/News_Details.aspx?NMc%252bcnhuPv5modBbWvOsqkJNrQWbpZUukINdh%252f6tASs%253d

Thanks Thug. Iraqi Business news always has some type of Aprils fools articles 4/01 on the dinar every year They certainly are making fun of us dinar speculators. So I don't know how to take this article I think I'm seeing a bit of sarcasm here by their writer. http://www.iraq-businessnews.com/2012/04/01/worldwide-celebrations-as-iraqi-dinar-revalues-11000/ http://www.iraq-businessnews.com/2013/04/01/new-iraqi-dinar-to-change-world-banking/ http://www.iraq-businessnews.com/2015/04/01/new-book-how-to-make-millions-selling-iraqi-dinars/

They need more than oil. They need to manufacture goods. They need to ramp up their agriculture. They need to work more than 45 days a year.

And he has not supported the Anbar province at all

So it raised 30 %.in value But most people here are expecting 100,000% rise in value in the IQD. I personally dont have enough IQD for 30% to mean much.

Five things that won't work in Iraq The more-troops option is so easy to dismiss it’s hardly worth another line: If over eight years of effort, 166,000 troops and the full weight of American military power couldn’t do the trick in Iraq, what could you possibly expect even fewer resources to accomplish? Asks Peter Van Buren. Middle East Online In one form or another, the United States has been at war with Iraq since 1990, including a sort-of invasion in 1991 and a full-scale one in 2003. During that quarter-century, Washington imposed several changes of government, spent trillions of dollars, and was involved in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. None of those efforts were a success by any conceivable definition of the term Washington has been capable of offering. Nonetheless, it’s the American Way to believe with all our hearts that every problem is ours to solve and every problem must have a solution, which simply must be found. As a result, the indispensable nation faces a new round of calls for ideas on what “we” should do next in Iraq. With that in mind, here are five possible “strategies” for that country on which only one thing is guaranteed: None of them will work. 1. Send in the Trainers In May, in the wake of the fall of the Sunni city of Ramadi to Islamic State (IS) fighters, President Obama announced a change of course in Iraq. After less than a year of not defeating, degrading, or destroying the Islamic State, the administration will now send in hundreds more military personnel to set up a new training base at Taqaddum in Anbar Province. There are already five training sites running in Iraq, staffed by most of the 3,100 military personnel the Obama administration has sent in. Yet after nine months of work, not a single trained Iraqi trooper has managed to make it into a combat situation in a country embroiled in armed chaos. The base at Taqaddum may only represent the beginning of a new “surge.” General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has begun to talk up what he calls “lily pads,” American baselets set up close to the front lines, from which trainers would work with Iraqi security forces. Of course, such lily pads will require hundreds more American military advisers to serve as flies, waiting for a hungry Islamic State frog. Leaving aside the all-too-obvious joke — that Dempsey is proposing the creation of a literal swamp, a desert quagmire of the lilypad sort — this idea has been tried. It failed over the eight years of the occupation of Iraq, when the United States maintained an archipelago of 505 bases in the country. (It also failed in Afghanistan.) At the peak of Iraq War 2.0, 166,000 troops staffed those American bases, conducting some $25 billion worth of training and arming of Iraqis, the non-results of which are on display daily. The question then is: How could more American trainers accomplish in a shorter period of time what so many failed to do over so many years? There is also the American belief that if you offer it, they will come. The results of American training so far, as Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter made clear recently, have fallen far short of expectations. By now, U.S. trainers were to have whipped 24,000 Iraqi soldiers into shape. The actual number to date is claimed to be some 9,000 and the description of a recent “graduation” ceremony for some of them couldn’t have been more dispiriting. (“The volunteers seemed to range in age from late teens to close to 60. They wore a mish-mash of uniforms and boots, while their marching during the ceremony was, shall we say, casual.”) Given how much training the United States has made available in Iraq since 2003, it's hard to imagine that too many young men have not given the option some thought. Simply because Washington opens more training camps, there is no reason to assume that Iraqis will show up. Oddly enough, just before announcing his new policy, President Obama seemed to pre-agree with critics that it wasn’t likely to work. “We’ve got more training capacity than we’ve got recruits,” he said at the close of the G7 summit in Germany. “It’s not happening as fast as it needs to.” Obama was on the mark. At the al-Asad training facility, the only one in Sunni territory, for instance, the Iraqi government has not sent a single new recruit to be trained by those American advisers for the past six weeks. And here's some bonus information: For each U.S. soldier in Iraq, there are already two American contractors. Currently some 6,300 of them are in the country. Any additional trainers mean yet more contractors, ensuring that the U.S. “footprint” made by this no-boots-on-the-ground strategy will only grow and General Dempsey’s lilypad quagmire will come closer to realization. 2. Boots on the Ground Senator John McCain, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, is the most vocal proponent of America's classic national security go-to move: send in U.S. troops. McCain, who witnessed the Vietnam War unfold, knows better than to expect Special Forces operatives, trainers, advisers, and combat air traffic controllers, along with U.S. air power, to turn the tide of any strategic situation. His response is to call for more — and he’s not alone. On the campaign trail recently, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, for instance, suggested that, were he president, he would consider a full-scale “re-invasion” of Iraq. Similarly, General Anthony Zinni, former head of U.S. Central Command, urged the sending in of many boots: “I can tell you, you could put ground forces on the ground now and we can destroy ISIS.” Among the boots-on-the-ground crowd are also some former soldiers who fought in Iraq in the Bush years, lost friends, and suffered themselves. Blinking through the disillusion of it all, they prefer to believe that we actually won in Iraq (or should have, or would have, if only the Bush and Obama administrations hadn’t squandered the “victory”). Needed now, they claim, are more U.S. troops back on the ground to win the latest version of their war. Some are even volunteering as private citizens to continue the fight. Can there be a sadder argument than the “it can't all have been a waste” one? The more-troops option is so easy to dismiss it’s hardly worth another line: If over eight years of effort, 166,000 troops and the full weight of American military power couldn’t do the trick in Iraq, what could you possibly expect even fewer resources to accomplish? 3. Partnering with Iran As hesitancy within the U.S. military to deploy ground forces in Iraq runs into chicken-hawk drum-pounding in the political arena, working ever more closely with Iran has become the default escalation move. If not American boots, that is, what about Iranian boots? The backstory for this approach is as odd a Middle Eastern tale as you can find. The original Obama administration plan was to use Arab, not Iranian, forces as proxy infantry. However, the much-ballyhooed 60-nation pan-Arab coalition proved little more than a short-lived photo op. Few, if any, of their planes are in the air anymore. America flies roughly 85% of all missions against Islamic State targets, with Western allies filling in a good part of the rest. No Arab ground troops ever showed up and key coalition countries are now openly snubbing Washington over its possible nuclear deal with Iran. Washington has, of course, been in a Cold War-ish relationship with Iran since 1979 when the Shah fell and radical students took over the American Embassy in Tehran. In the 1980s, the United States aided Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran, while in the years after the invasion of 2003 Iran effectively supported Iraqi Shiite militias against American forces occupying the country. Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani, currently directing his country’s efforts in Iraq, was once one of the most wanted men on America's kill list. In the wake of the 2014 Islamic State capture of Mosul and other northern Iraqi cities, Iran ramped up its role, sending in trainers, advisers, arms, and its own forces to support the Shiite militias that Baghdad saw as its only hope. The United States initially turned a blind eye on all this, even as Iranian-led militias, and possibly the Iranians themselves, became consumers of close American air support. In Washington right now, there is a growing, if quiet, acknowledgment that Iranian help is one of the few things that might push IS back without the need for U.S. ground troops. Small but telling escalations are occurring regularly. In the battle to retake the northern Sunni city of Tikrit, for example, the United States flew air missions supporting Shiite militias; the fig leaf of an explanation: that they operated under Iraqi government, not Iranian, control. "We're going to provide air cover to all forces that are under the command and control of the government of Iraq," a U.S. Central Command spokesperson similarly noted in reference to the coming fight to retake the city of Ramadi. That signals a significant shift, former State Department official Ramzy Mardini points out. "The U.S. has effectively changed its position, coming to the realization that Shiite militias are a necessary evil in the fight against IS." Such thinking may extend to Iranian ground troops now evidently fighting outside the strategic Beiji oil refinery. Things may be even cozier between the United States and the Iranian-backed Shiite militias than we previously thought. Bloomberg reports that U.S. soldiers and Shiite militia groups are both already using the Taqaddum military base, the very place where President Obama is sending the latest 450 U.S. military personnel. The downside? Help to Iran only sets up the next struggle the United States is likely to bumble into due to a growing Iranian hegemony in the region. Syria, perhaps? 4. Arm the Kurds The Kurds represent Washington’s Great Hope for Iraq, a dream that plays perfectly into an American foreign policy trope about needing to be “liked” by someone. (Try Facebook.) These days, glance at just about any conservative website or check out right-wing pundits and enjoy the propaganda about the Kurds: they are plucky fighters, loyal to America, tough bastards who know how to stand and deliver. If only we gave them more weapons, they would kill more Islamic State bad guys just for us. To the right-wing crowd, they are the twenty-first-century equivalent of Winston Churchill in World War II, crying out, “Just give us the tools and we'll defeat Hitler!” There is some slight truth in all this. The Kurds have indeed done a good job of pushing IS militants out of swaths of northern Iraq and were happy for U.S. assistance in getting their Peshmerga fighters to the Turkish border when the locus of fighting was the city of Kobane. They remain thankful for the continuing air support the United States is providing their front-line troops and for the limited weapons Washington has already sent. For Washington, the problem is that Kurdish interests are distinctly limited when it comes to fighting Islamic State forces. When the de facto borders of Kurdistan were directly threatened, they fought like caffeinated badgers. When the chance to seize the disputed town of Erbil came up — the government in Baghdad was eager to keep it within its sphere of control — the Kurds beat the breath out of IS. But when it comes to the Sunni population, the Kurds don’t give a hoot, as long as they stay away from Kurdistan. Has anyone seen Kurdish fighters in Ramadi or anywhere else in heavily Sunni al-Anbar Province? Those strategic areas, now held by the Islamic State, are hundreds of actual miles and millions of political miles from Kurdistan. So, sure, arm the Kurds. But don't expect them to play a strategic role against IS outside their own neighborhood. A winning strategy for the Kurds involving Washington doesn’t necessarily translate into a winning strategy for Washington in Iraq. 5. That Political Solution Washington’s current man in Baghdad, Prime Minister al-Abadi, hasn’t moved his country any closer to Sunni-Shiite reconciliation than his predecessor, Nouri al-Maliki, did. In fact, because Abadi has little choice but to rely on those Shiite militias, which will fight when his corrupt, inept army won’t, he has only drawn closer to Iran. This has ensured that any (American) hope of bringing Sunnis into the process in a meaningful way as part of a unified government in a unified state will prove to be a pipe dream. A balance of forces is a prerequisite for a Shiite-Sunni-Kurdish federal Iraq. With no side strong enough to achieve victory or weak enough to lose, negotiations could follow. When then-Senator Joe Biden first proposed the idea of a three-state Iraq in 2006, it just might have been possible. However, once the Iranians had built a Shiite Iraqi client state in Baghdad and then, in 2014, unleashed the militias as an instrument of national power, that chance was lost. Many Sunnis see no other choice but to support the Islamic State, as they did al-Qaeda in Iraq in the years after the American invasion of 2003. They fear those Shiite militias — and with good reason. Stories from the largely Sunni city of Tikrit, where militia-led forces defeated Islamic State fighters, describe “a ghost town ruled by gunmen.” In the Euphrates Valley town of Jurf al-Sakhar, there were reports of ethnic cleansing. Similarly, the mainly Sunni population of the city of Nukhayb, which sits at a strategic crossroad between Sunni and Shiite areas, has accused the militias of taking over while pretending to fight the extremists. There remains great fear in Sunni-dominated Anbar of massacres and “cleansing” if Shiite militias enter the province in force. In such a situation, there will always be a place for an al-Qaeda, an Islamic State, or some similar movement, no matter how brutal, to defend the beleaguered Sunni population. What everyone in Iraq understands, and apparently almost everyone in America does not, is that the Islamic State is a symptom of civil war, not a standalone threat. One lingering hope of the Obama administration has no support in Baghdad and so has remained a non-starter: defeating IS by arming Sunni tribes directly in the style of the “Anbar Awakening” movement of the occupation years. Indeed, the central government fears arming them, absent a few token units to keep the Americans quiet. The Shiites know better than most what an insurgency can do to help defeat a larger, better-armed, power. Yet despite the risk of escalating Iraq's shadow civil war, the United States now is moving to directly arm the Sunnis. Current plans are to import weapons into the newest lilypad base in Anbar and pass them on to local Sunni tribes, whether Baghdad likes that or not (and yes, the break with Baghdad is worth noting). The weapons themselves are as likely to be wielded against Shiite militias as against the Islamic State, assuming they aren't just handed over to IS fighters. The loss of equipment to those militants is no small thing. No one talking about sending more new weaponry to Iraq, no matter who the recipient is, should ignore the ease with which Islamic State militants have taken U.S.-supplied heavy weapons. Washington has been forced to direct air strikes against such captured equipment — even as it ships yet more in. In Mosul, some 2,300 Humvees were abandoned to IS fighters in June 2014; more were left to them when Iraqi army forces suddenly fled Ramadi in May. This pattern of supply, capture, and resupply would be comically absurd, had it not turned tragic when some of those Humvees were used by IS as rolling, armored suicide bombs and Washington had to rush AT-4 anti-tank missiles to the Iraqi army to destroy them. The Real Reason Nothing Is Going to Work The fundamental problem underlying nearly every facet of U.S. policy toward Iraq is that “success,” as defined in Washington, requires all the players to act against their own wills, motivations, and goals in order to achieve U.S. aims. The Sunnis need a protector as they struggle for a political place, if not basic survival, in some new type of Iraq. The Shiite government in Baghdad seeks to conquer and control the Sunni regions. Iran wants to secure Iraq as a client state and use it for easier access to Syria. The Kurds want an independent homeland. When Secretary of Defense Ash Carter remarked, “What apparently happened [in Ramadi] was that the Iraqi forces just showed no will to fight,” what he really meant was that the many flavors of forces in Iraq showed no will to fight for America's goals. In the Washington mind-set, Iraq is charged with ultimate responsibility for resolving problems that were either created by or exacerbated by the United States in the first place, even as America once again assumes an ever-greater role in that country’s increasingly grim fate. For America's “plan” to work, Sunni tribesmen would have to fight Sunnis from the Islamic State in support of a Shiite government that suppressed their peaceful Arab-Spring-style protests, and that, backed by Iran, has been ostracizing, harassing, and murdering them. The Kurds would have to fight for an Iraqi nation-state from which they wish to be independent. It can't work. Go back to 2011 and it’s unlikely anyone could have imagined that the same guy who defeated Hillarious Clinton and gained the White House based on his opposition to the last Iraq War would send the United States tumbling back into that chaotic country. If ever there was an avoidable American crisis, Iraq War 3.0 is it. If ever there was a war, whatever its chosen strategies, in which the United States has no hopes of achieving its goals, this is it. By now, you’re undoubtedly shaking your head and asking, “How did this happen?” Historians will do the same. http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=71929

Sad but so very true.

I would like to believe that But thats not what it says at all. Are you thinking its a conspiracy?

but if that's the case why didn't they Rv when Iraq was somewhat stable 4 years ago? I'm guessing someone will say because of Maliki but I don't buy that. Sleeping with the enemy is wrong ! No amount of money is worth this. I surely respect the office of president but I don't respect the man one stinking bit

Those are some tough neighborhoods Umbertino. Good for you working at the soup kitchen. I tried it once and just could not do it again. I do like volunteering at our local VA hospitals

Could be a lie but seems plausible to me. They did take control of those cities and they do want us dead. Pretty certain that's true. They only have to get it right one time. But I'm not willing to give up any of our freedoms in the name of security. Thanks for your post

All they need to do is get it onto a ship heading into a port. No need to take it off the ship if the winds blowing the right direction. One phone call detonates a container full of whatever they have plundered. Easy as that

Note count does not mean anything. Every dinar is a liability for the Central Bank of Iraq.

WASHINGTON – The Pentagon has confirmed to WND that the Islamic State has seized enough radioactive materials from captured Iraqi facilities to develop “dirty bombs,” just as ISIS’ recent English-language magazine, Dabiq, claimed. The ISIS claim had alarmed the Australian intelligence service, which initially revealed the prospect that ISIS fighters have seized sufficient radioactive and biological materials from research centers and hospitals – which previously were under Iraqi government control. Such seizures were first revealed at a meeting of the Australia Group in Perth, Australia, at which Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop expressed the deep concern of members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and regional partners over the potential use by ISIS of the seized materials. “We are aware of claims that ISIL has declared its motives of developing a ‘dirty bomb’ in a recent edition of its propaganda magazine,” Defense Department spokeswoman, U.S. Navy Cmdr. Elissa Smith, told WND. “We share the same concern as our Australian defense officials and regional partners and will continue to use our intelligence resources to remain vigilant of any activity and indicators of this violent extremist organization’s intent to employ such weapons,” she said. It is the first time that any U.S. official has confirmed that the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, had acquired a sufficient amount of radioactive materials to be incorporated in conventional weapons, such as artillery, to spread harmful radiation. Pamela Geller’s “Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance” carries the warning that the threat from ISIS isn’t just overseas. The book is now available in the WND Superstore. A “dirty bomb” simply is a conventional explosives package wrapped with radioactive or biological materials. If such projectiles are fired into highly populated, confined areas, the effect of such an explosion would radiate the area for years to come. U.S. officials have told WND that there is mounting concern that ISIS, with its development of weapons of mass destruction, may accelerate attacks, even though the Muslim world has just entered into the month-long holy period of fasting called Ramadan. In 2014, Iraq first informed the United Nations by letter that ISIS had seized nuclear materials used for scientific research at a university in the city of Mosul. That city was captured by ISIS and remains under jihadist control to this day. Mosul is some 400 kilometers, or 250 miles, northwest of Iraq’s capital, Baghdad. The letter said that ISIS had seized some 40 kilograms, or 88 pounds, of uranium compounds. The letter appealed for U.N. help to “stave off the threat of their use by terrorists in Iraq or abroad.” Even though the U.N.’s atomic agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, claimed at the time that the seizure was of low grade products, experts had stated that such materials could spread radioactivity. Initially, U.S. officials had played down the threat the materials would pose, claiming that it would be difficult for the jihadists to use the materials to make weapons. However, Iraq’s ambassador to the U.N., Mohamed Ali Alhakim, said the nuclear materials, “despite the limited amounts, can enable terrorist groups, with the availability of the required expertise, to use it separately or in combination with other materials in its terrorist acts.” In showing some concern over the capture of radioactive materials, the U.S. State Department in September 2014 said that it had signed an agreement with the Baghdad government to step up joint efforts to detect and recover sensitive nuclear materials around the country before ISIS could get to the supplies. “Obtaining radiological material from places like universities or hospitals is relatively easy if you have the firepower, a chaotic situation and jihadists willing to sacrifice their health handling it,” Ryan Mauro of The Clarion Project told Fox News at the time. Similarly Matthew Bunn, a professor with the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University, told Fox News that the purpose of such a weapon is to terrorize a population and the threat of its use is sufficient for ISIS to accomplish its goal. “The intent of a dirty bomb is to cause panic with the fear of the radioactivity,” he said. “But that may be more difficult to do if governments can quickly confirm that the amount of radioactivity involved is not a threat to anybody (even though) that in itself is problematic when there’s so much distrust on the subject of radiation risks.” The letter to the U.N. came a day after Iraqi officials had confirmed that ISIS also had taken control of a disused chemical weapons factory which was said to house expended artillery shells with residue of the poison gas, Sarin. In talking about ISIS’ latest claim of having sufficient radioactive and biological weapons stockpiles, Australia’s foreign minister, Bishop, told The Australian that such information is “worrying” to NATO and other members of the Australian Group. It’s been almost a year since ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi announced creation of the Islamic State which is subject to an extreme interpretation of Shariah law. The conquered territory includes portions of north and northeastern Syria and much of the Sunni-dominated western regions of Ira Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/pentagon-confirms-isis-dirty-bomb-claims/#ggdXlWs9Js2WCSU0.99

"Kurdistan has taken a decisive step towards financial autonomy with plans to tap international capital markets for the first time." How can this be good. If the Kurds split this ride is over. Thanks Thug. I read this in the Lopster section earlier today

But many here do go to the tank. The truth is they usually sign out first so they are not seen hanging out at the tank. That's ok!There is nothing wrong with hearing both sides is there? Can't just listen to the used car salesmen. Gotta listen to the mechanics also Almost seems foolish not to. I agree that some are trolls but some have really done their homework . They have taken way more time learning this than I could ever hope to. As far as their snickering goes, I just ignore that. Who cares? We are adults and as adults we can read others opinions we disagree with without getting all fired up can't we? I just let it go as the doctor told me to watch my blood pressure LOL. And lastly. this is far from being a sure thing. But then again it's only money. We can always make some more.

Iraq cancels eight percent tax on foreign currencies http://ekurd.net/iraq-cancels-eight-percent-tax-on-foreign-currencies-2015-06-20 Posted on June 20, 2015by Editorial Staff in Economy Photo: Reuters BAGHDAD,—Iraq’s Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi approved a request by the central bank to cancel an eight percent tax on foreign currencies brought into the country, Abadi’s office announced in a statement Thursday. The statement stressed Abadi’s commitment to investigating issues with recent high fluctuations in Iraq’s currency bazaars. The Central Bank’s top lawyer, Ali Alaq, said the decision to cancel the tax on foreign currencies would stabilize rates on dollar to dinar exchanges. The dollar to dinar exchange rate rose to its highest level in ten years on June 16 with $100 USD trading for IQD 146,000. That rate fell to IQD 131,000 on Friday, three days after intervention by the Central Bank. The price decreased with the attempts of Iraq’s Central Bank after three days of its highest Before heading to Tehran on Wednesday, Abadi said his government would “strike with an iron fist,” pledging to reprimand anyone found guilty of tampering with exchange rates. Iraq’s economy, nearly 90 percent dependent on the country’s oil revenue, has suffered due to the global slump in crude oil prices, as well as the cost of the on-going war against Islamic State (IS) militants in the country. An International Monetary Fund (IMF) mission met recently with Iraqi officials in Amman to discuss an emergency assistance package amounting to $833 million. According to Carlo Sdralevich, who led the IMF delegation, Iraq’s economy contracted by 2.1 percent in 2014. “With low oil prices, export revenues have contracted, pushing the current account into a deficit expected to reach 8 percent of GDP in 2015. As a result, foreign assets have declined in 2014 to $67 billion and are projected to fall further this year,” Sdralevich said in a statement following the meetings. Copyright ©, respective author or news agency, nrttv.com

Awesome!. We may be looking at doubling our money! Great News Yota, Thanks

These guys give themselves to much credit "the measures that have been applied since yesterday reduced per dollar from 1420 to 1317 dinars" It was at 1340 yesterday. Not 1420. I agree with you ChinaDawg that at least its going in the right direction but I sure hope that you are wrong about where it needs to be. I was hoping more like 116. I bought into this late so 1200 is a break even number for me.

The world is flooded with oil and the biggest glut in history is taking shape Wolf Richter, Wolf Street Jun. 17, 2015, 7:52 PM 7,367 11 flickr/ezioman “The market is flooded with oil and everyone is desperate to sell quickly, so you have a price war,” a marine-fuel trader in Singapore, the largest ship refueling hub in the world, told Reuters as prices for bunker fuel oil are plunging. OPEC, which produces about 40% of global oil supply, announced on June 5 to “maintain” output at 30 million barrels per day for the next six months. Six days later, the IEA’s Oil Market Report for June clarified that “Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and the United Arab Emirates pumped at record monthly rates” in May and boosted OPEC output to 31.3 million barrels per day, the highest since October 2012, and over 1 MMbpd above target for the third month in a row. OPEC will likely continue pumping at this rate “in coming months,” the IEA said. “We have plenty of crude,” explained Ahmed Al-Subaey, Saudi Aramco’s executive director for marketing while in India to discuss with Indian oil officials supplying additional oil. “You are not going to see any cuts from Saudi Arabia,” he said. Saudi Arabia produced 10.3 MMbpd in May, its highest rate on record. So forget the long-rumored decline of Saudi oil fields. For Saudi Arabia, it’s a matter of survival. It has cheap oil, and it won’t be pushed into the abyss by high-cost, junk-bond-funded, eternally cash-flow-negative producers in the US. It will defend its market share, and it can do so profitably. Russian produced 10.71 MMbpd of oil and condensate in May, a hair lower than its post-Soviet record set in January, and within reach of the Soviet record of 11.48 MMbpd set in 1987. Russia is not cutting back either. It needs every foreign-exchange dime it can get. Its oil & gas sector is its economic lifeline. And US oil producers aren’t backing off either. They idled 60% of their drilling rigs, slashed capital expenditures, laid off tens of thousands of workers, and shut some facilities. A number of companies in the oil patch have filed for bankruptcy. But US producers are pumping more oil than ever before. Despite wild gyrations in granular production data that might point at a leveling off or even a decline in one or the other oil field, overall US production, based on the weekly estimates by the EIA, soared to 9.61 MMbpd in the week ended June 5. A new all-time record, and up 13.6% from a year ago! Note the relentless trend line: Wolf Street With the world’s top three oil producers – Saudi Arabia, the US, and Russia – pumping at record levels and with OPEC producing above target, miracles would have to happen on the demand side to bring this into balance. But miracles are rare these days. Over the past decade, China has absorbed 48% of the increase in global oil production. But now its economic growth is slowing and its economy is becoming more energy efficient. Demand in the US and Europe is not performing any miracles either. There is some growth: 1.4 MMbpd for 2015, according to the IEA. But not nearly enough to mop up the additional production from OPEC, Russia, and the US – not to speak of Iran when it rejoins the global oil trade. So OECD crude oil inventories rose another 12.6 million barrels in May, despite the first draws in the US in nine months. According to Bloomberg, supply has exceeded demand for five quarters in a row, the longest glut since the 1997 Asian economic crisis. Eugen Weinberg, head of commodities research at Commerzbank in Frankfurt, put it this way: “Any expectations the oversupply will be gone by 2016 don’t look justified at this stage.” If demand grows at 1.4 MMbpd in 2015, and if production remains at current levels – two big IFs – global oversupply would still run at 1 MMbpd in the third quarter and at 600,000 bpd in the fourth quarter, which, according to Bloomberg, would be “the eighth consecutive quarterly surplus, exceeding the current record of six quarters from 1997 to 1998.” It would be the biggest glut in recorded crude-oil history. But no production increases in the US may be unlikely. US shale producers can’t afford to keep production level. They’re loaded up with debt that is getting more expensive, creditors are getting antsy, cash flows are negative, and so they have to produce more to get more money and stay alive. And then there’s Iran. Bloomberg: The glut could swell further if Iran and world powers reach an accord on the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program by their June 30 deadline, Commerzbank predicts. The country could boost exports by 1 million barrels a day within seven months of sanctions being removed, Oil Minister Bijan Namdar Zanganeh said in Vienna on June 3. If that happens, we’ll be watching the most magnificent oil glut ever building up into next year. Oil producer Canada is feeling the heat from the oil-price crash, and manufacturing is getting hit hard, but not just because of the oil bust. Read… Manufacturing in Canada Sags, Triggers Chilling References to Financial Crisis Read more: http://wolfstreet.com/2015/06/16/biggest-glut-in-crude-oil-history-takes-shape-us-russia-opec-saudi-arabia-production/#ixzz3dQMAivaY

Very true but it also proves they can pull the plug on their currency anytime they seem fitI know some people that lost out in the 50 dinar notes

Thanks thug Where there is smoke there is usually fire

They can raise it 50% So $1000 will be worth $1500 pretty good return