Dinar Buddy Posted August 14, 2013 Report Share Posted August 14, 2013 ControversyCritics of EO 13303 contend new debt for Iraq will accrue from the new Development Fund for Iraq. They say that it will allow opportunities for grave abuses because it offers little illuminating context and its tone suggests the language should be read quite broadly. These concerns stem from the apparent likelihood the fund will be used to leverage US government and corporate interests. The United Nations Security Council approved Resolution 1483 on May 22, 2003, ending economic sanctions against Iraq while clearing a path for the transfer of over $1 billion from the Oil-for-Food program as seed money for establishment of the development fund. Critics are also alarmed because all proceeds from the sale of Iraqi oil and natural gas are to be placed into the fund, noting developing countries have amassed huge debts in exchange for selling out their natural resources to powerful corporations. This paradigm, they contend, cloaks corporate welfare and neocolonialism in terms of 'poverty alleviation', and now in Iraq as 'humanitarian assistance'. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13303#Controversy Why are the IDQ deals and websites creating certificate and claims about OE 13303. This is very misleading... What to the GURU's have to say? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
only 1-25k dinar Posted August 14, 2013 Report Share Posted August 14, 2013 If anyone in here listens to Phoenix, they already know the truth of this ex order...no surprise to me, but maybe others do not know....thanks for the post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Man Posted August 14, 2013 Report Share Posted August 14, 2013 What are the implication for IQD holders considering waht was just said? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatoraces Posted August 14, 2013 Report Share Posted August 14, 2013 What are the implication for IQD holders considering waht was just said? nothing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pocono Posted August 14, 2013 Report Share Posted August 14, 2013 According to the Federal Indictment against the BH Group EO 13303 has nothing to do with us but rather protects Iraq's funds. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hame55 Posted August 14, 2013 Report Share Posted August 14, 2013 (edited) Controversy Critics of EO 13303 contend new debt for Iraq will accrue from the new Development Fund for Iraq. They say that it will allow opportunities for grave abuses because it offers little illuminating context and its tone suggests the language should be read quite broadly. These concerns stem from the apparent likelihood the fund will be used to leverage US government and corporate interests. The United Nations Security Council approved Resolution 1483 on May 22, 2003, ending economic sanctions against Iraq while clearing a path for the transfer of over $1 billion from the Oil-for-Food program as seed money for establishment of the development fund. Critics are also alarmed because all proceeds from the sale of Iraqi oil and natural gas are to be placed into the fund, noting developing countries have amassed huge debts in exchange for selling out their natural resources to powerful corporations. This paradigm, they contend, cloaks corporate welfare and neocolonialism in terms of 'poverty alleviation', and now in Iraq as 'humanitarian assistance'. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13303#Controversy Why are the IDQ deals and websites creating certificate and claims about OE 13303. This is very misleading... What to the GURU's have to say? "Nothing to due with the IQD"? What is due? The rent? What do the Guru's have to say? Guru's what? What are they possessing? Plurals do not require apostrophes BTW - No question marks on your questions... Dude, this isn't just spelling - it's usage, using the language properly. The way I see it, your grammar runs parallel with your post's message here - not working. In a broad sense, the Executive order probably does cover us - whatever that means. What we really need cover for is taxes - and I see no reason they should be paid at all on a currency exchange. It's purely currency exchange - did I get a tax refund when I lost a thousand dollars trading in three thousand dollars for euros when I went to Europe? NO! So why should we pay taxes on any gains? LOL Just trade in a tenner every once in a while...no taxes Edited August 14, 2013 by hame55 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts