Thread: Iraq/Dinar News. 09/05 to 01/14/07

Originally Posted by worf

Why November and not sooner? You are one of the most positive of everyone on this forum and have been since I have been following the dinar here. I know you believe Nov is the time frame but why? We aren't even sure if the FIL has been passed or not (mavbe it has, maybe it hasn't. seems difficult to really know one way or the other). With their country on the brink of possible civil war or worse, why would they wait so long? It seems that the longer they wait, the worse it gets. The fear is it will get so bad that they couldn't r/v even if they wanted to because of all of the instability. If they wait too long, their govt. could fall and have to start all over again possibly with 3 countries instead of 1. I just don't get it. I think we may rapidly be approaching the "do or die" moment, don't you?

worf

Yes, I have been for over a year now on here and still am unquestionably. I would never have brought this opportunity and had so many folks interested in it if I didn't believe in it. My point is that from speaking to people in Iraq and reading articles very little gets done over Ramadan. The banks are only open half days with skeleton staff and most shops, restaurants etc close down. I can't see a r/v happening at a time when their people are fasting and praying, just highly unlikely and that's why IF we don't get this done before the 24 September then we'll be as good as into November.

November also coincides with Iraq opening its doors through the IC to foreign investors so their FIL and a r/v WILL need to be done by then or their country will be bought up for peanuts.

We know their government take their time with everything, you'd think with the world watching they'd be inclined to get on with what their people, the Kurds, the US and the rest of the world want. The FIL is a classic case in question. This SHOULD have been passed back in July but they went on a 30 day break instead.

I have no doubt about this investment, we will all get wealthy from it, I've spoken to friends within the oil business, high up people who are heavily invested in the dinar, one of the reasons I invested because of the huge wealth. OIL=Disney Dollars, no doubt about it.

Course I hope it's this week just being realistic. November is only round the corner. :0)

Originally Posted by Adster

I also believe with the November elections that Bush NEEDS to have this done by then. Imagine all those investors he's contributed towards making them millionaires!? Course they'll vote for him!

bush cant run for president again he's already had two terms and by law he cant run for a 3rd

Don't know if this has been posted yet, but here is a link to another site.
Notice the ticker along the top which shows USD/IQD in green with an "up" arrow....

Iraqi Dinar Exchange Rate Daily News

For what it's worth....another ticker site to keep an eye on.

The maximum tenure for a US President is 2 terms so this would be his last term.

Found a great article on Bush, this is just a little piece of it, if you want to whole link I'll post it.....Interesting that Iraq is mentioned...


Shrewsbury, N.J.: What does Pres. Bush have to do to regain the support of the American people?

Robert G. Kaiser: At this stage of the discussion, I welcome this straightforward query. And it's interesting (to me anyhow) to contemplate some answers:

1) Alluded to above: if Bush could again, as he did after 9/11, lead the country through a response to another grim attack on our country, that might do the trick. But of course it might not--another grim attack might be the final nail in his political coffin, proof that his "war on terror" was ineffectual.

2) Achieve stability and a measure of democracy in Iraq, solidify Karzai's position in Afghanistan, reach breakthroughs on the Iranian and North Korean problems, help Israel and the Palestinians make a deal. These would all be great achievements. Any one of them would be extremely difficult to achieve on the basis of today's situations, I'd argue. What chance is there of getting all four?

3) Respond to a Democratic sweep in November with a whole new approach to governing: bi-partisan, realistic, facing up to the budget mess, negotiating deals with Congress on all the contentious security issues, etc. How likely is this--either the Democratic sweep, or the new approach? Your guess is as good as mine.

Originally Posted by Adster

Not true, Bush can be re-elected again.

Huh? Re-elected for President?

Originally Posted by readytogo

Huh? Re-elected for President?

no he cant ... he also cant hold a position in which he can be appointed to president (ie vice president sec of state etc )

Apologies, I remember reading about Roosevelt who did serve 3 terms and died into his fourth term. My mistake, we're all human, us good old English boys aren't always up to scratch on US politics!

Originally Posted by Adster

Apologies, I remember reading about Roosevelt who did serve 3 terms and died into his fourth term. My mistake, we're all human, us good old English boys aren't always up to scratch on US politics!

he was the last one i beleve there was an amendment that changed all that

Amendment XXII - Presidential Term Limits. Ratified 2/27/1951. History

1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.


22nd Amendment history


Franklin Delano Roosevelt was first elected President in 1932, and re-elected in 1936. When it came time for the Democrats to nominate a candidate for the Presidency in 1940, two things had happened. First, the Republicans had made great gains in Congress in the 1938 elections. And Hitler happened. Europe was in the throes of a great war, with trouble in the Pacific, too. A change away from Roosevelt, who had led the nation through the Great Depression, did not seem wise. He was nominated for an unprecedented third term, and won. It was not a landslide victory, however, and it is debatable that FDR would have had a third term had it not been for the war. When 1944 rolled around, changing leaders in the middle of World War II, which the United States was now fully engaged in, also seemed unwise, and FDR ran for and was elected to, a fourth term.

His life was nearly over, however, and his Vice President, Harry Truman, became President upon FDR's death less than 100 days after his inauguration. Though FDR's leadership was seen by many as a key reason that the U.S. came out of WWII victorious, the Congress was determined, once the war ended, to ensure that Washington's self-imposed two-term limit become the law of the land. Specifically excepting Truman from its provisions, the 22nd Amendment passed Congress on March 21, 1947. After Truman won a second term in 1948, it was ratified on February 27, 1951 (1,439 days). Truman could have run for a third term, but bowed out early before campaigning began.

Agreed, I stand corrected. Why I passed my university exam/course in history and not US politics, LOL.

Anyway, back on thread....