Iraqi Dinar – Iraqi Dinar Value, Iraqi Dinar Exchange Rate, Buying Iraqi Dinar, Iraqi Dinar Buying Guide

vtowngolf09 asked:


Im looking for a really good website that shows the value of Iraqi Dinar? Also, some people say there is one that updates everyday with the value. Can somebody help?

Umaga asked:


Will the Iraqi Dinar ever go up in value as the Kuwaiti Dinar, Iraq is bigger with way more Oil, but also has violence thats off the charts. I guess I’m trying to get wealthy in 10 years.

cln23 asked:


I was wondering given the current situation, if anyone thought buying dinar would be worth it?

journeymanpictures asked:

Jan 2005 Two months after the US launched its biggest ever assault on Fallujah, what exactly happened inside the city has, until now, remained a mystery. Now, for the first time, Guardian films reveals the true story. It was billed as a resounding military success. Over 1200 insurgents were meant to have been killed and another 2000 trapped inside Fallujah. But now this version of events is being challenged. Far from being crushed, rebels claim they left the city in an organised withdrawal …

cept positions in the Mideast, such as jobs in Iraq or Afghanistan for various reasons. Some will take these jobs out of a sense of duty, or to do their part for the cause. Others for the adventure or even to fine tune jobs skills in a very dynamic environment. For others, it’s simply a quicker way to make a lot of money.

For most, salaries earned while working jobs in Iraq or Afghanistan are the most they’ve ever earned. Many pull in salaries in excess of USD$10,000.00 every two weeks, which quickly compensates for the doldrums of living in a war zone. The money builds rapidly, and without a plan many will quickly squander it. Of course that’s not always the case, and for some, their goal may be nothing more than to take care of short debt, help out family members or put it away in a savings account until they decide what to do with it. Others will just spend it.

I’ve seen many who spend hard earned money as fast as they make it. They get to comfortable with their new salaries, as if the job is never going away or they plan to spend a career in a war zone. They’ll return home on vacation, buy a new car for the spouse, add an addition to the house, etc., etc.. Before they know it, the money is gone. Now they end up staying another year to recoup the savings that they’ve just spent.

I’ve met people who’ve fallen into this trap and end up working in these locations for years to cover their own spending or that of a family member. When I was in Iraq, I worked with a guy who had a spouse in Thailand. He spent a year working in Iraq, quit his job and then spent a year unemployed living the good life in Thailand. Certainly the dollar goes much farther in Thailand although in his case he built a big beautiful house and really lived it up. After that year was over and the money was gone, he was back in Iraq.

Others however, travel to a war zone with distinct goals in mind. They know what they want to achieve and how long it will take to get there. They’ve communicated with their spouses and prepared the family for their absence. These are the people who rarely return.



By: Alan Nelson

About the Author:

wexlerforcongress asked:

Sec. Rice tells Rep. Wexler she did not have intelligence that cast doubt on her claims of Iraq having WMD.

Mumbai: Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) is pleased to announce that it has executed two Production Sharing Contracts with the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) covering petroleum exploration activities in the Rovi and Sarta Blocks in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq.

Under the terms of the contract, Reliance Exploration & Production DMCC, a wholly owned subsidiary of RIL, will serve as the operator.

Mr. Atul Chandra, President of International Operations, RIL, said, “We are pleased to reach agreement with the KRG on these two PSCs. We hope and believe this will be an investment that will provide long-term benefits to all the stakeholders.”

RIL established a local office in Erbil in 2006 and has undertaken extensive geological work over the past year in the Kurdistan region.

RIL has been actively pursuing petroleum exploration activities in the Middle East, particularly in Oman and Yemen, besides India, Asia Pacific Region and South America.

Reliance Industries Limited

Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) is India’s largest private sector company on all major financial parameters with turnover of Rs1,18,354 crore (US$ 27.23 billion), cash profit of Rs17,678 crore (US$ 4.07 billion), net profit of Rs11,943 crore (US$ 2.75 billion) and net worth of Rs63, 967 crore (US$ 14.72 billion) as of March 31, 2007.

RIL is the first and only private sector company from India to feature in the Fortune Global 500 list of ‘World’s Largest Corporations’ and ranks amongst the world’s Top 200 companies in terms of profits. RIL is amongst the 25 fastest climbers ranked by Fortune. RIL also features in the Forbes Global list of world’s 400 best big companies and in FT Global 500 list of world’s largest companies.



By: Manu Dagar

About the Author:

I suspect that many of those who are opposed to the tactical changes in Iraq explained by the president in his speech to the nation on Jan. 10 and reinforced in his State of Union speech this past week do not believe that Iraq is a major front in a wider war.

They don’t accept that we are at war with Islamic fascists. When these people use “war” and “terror” in the same sentence, they don’t mean military war. They mean rhetorical war as in “war on drugs” or “war on organized crime.” Sen. John Kerry stated this position clearly in his campaign for the presidency, “The war on terror is … occasionally military … But it’s primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation …” To these people, bringing the troops home from Iraq means that the war is over.

Here is the argument: To view terrorism as war exaggerates its threat. You don’t give in to terror, but you do not use the military as the tip of the sword – and certainly no massive pre-emptive military strikes followed by invasion. Acts of terror are crimes. Some are horrific, yes, but still acts committed by criminals, not soldiers of a sovereign state – with whom wars are fought. The American criminal justice system with its individual liberty guarantees is the institution that should be responsible for apprehending and judging any alleged perpetrators.

Viewed through this lens, the detainees at Guantanamo are not “the enemy.” Rather, they are “the accused,” innocent until proven guilty in an American court of law. Similarly, the NSA counterintelligence program must be “domestic spying” because we are not at war with any foreign nation.

When queried about the aftermath of a troop withdrawal from Iraq before Iraq is capable of handling its own security, those who favor such a move say, “Not our war – not our problem.”

President Bush’s position is that premature withdrawal from Iraq will result in both a catastrophe for the Iraqi people and a major setback in the war against the Islamists. The president believes that defeat in Iraq will give Islamists a home base like they enjoyed in Afghanistan prior to 9/11 from which they can plan and coordinate attacks against the United States.

The New York Times editorialized on the morning before the president’s speech, “Mr. Bush must acknowledge that there is no military solution for Iraq,” but just five paragraphs later the Times wrote, “Nor can America simply turn its back on whatever happens to Iraq after it leaves. With or without American troops, a nightmare future for Iraq is a nightmare future for the United States, too, …”

So, we bring the troops home, but we don’t turn our backs. What does that mean? If our leaving results in a regional war or “Iraq’s people and its oil fields fall under the tightening grip of a more powerful Iran,” which the Times speculates could happen, what do we do? Talk, discuss, engage, negotiate like we should have been doing all along, right?

In my view, those who think that negotiations are silver bullets for every possible situation either haven’t had much experience negotiating or are terribly naive. Iran is the perfect case in point.

People engage in negotiations if it is in their self-interest and for no other reason. During the Cold War both the United States and the Soviet Union negotiated with each other because each could be destroyed by the other. Society survival was the self-interest of both parties.

Years of negotiating with European powers to the contrary, the present leadership of Iran has decided that becoming a member of the nuclear bomb making club is in their self-interest. On the other hand, the leadership of the United States has decided that a nuclear-armed Iran is not in our best interests.

Iran is a major player in encouraging unrest in Iraq because it is in its self-interest – civil war is good, anarchy even better. There is only one incentive that would, in the short term, keep Iran’s hands off of Iraq. Let them have the bomb.

The president will not allow this.



By: Gary Watts

About the Author:

I had a disturbing dream about war, politics, and the result of the 2008 Presidential election the other day. Like many dreams, it was created from a combination of current events like the war in Iraq and the 2008 Presidential election mixed with a healthy dose of United States foreign policy insecurity.

It is interesting how the mind takes this combination of thoughts and creates a narrative and formulates a story. Let me share the dream with you, with the prospect that it will remain just a bad dream. Hopefully the next President of the United States will be very successful and the end of the war in Iraq will ensure a lasting peace in the Middle East.

In the dream, the front page of the New York Times, on this warm late August morning of 2009, is full of murky Middle East headlines. It is very apparent that the Middle East is on the verge of a full scale regional war. The prospect of war in the region has already doubled the price of a barrel of oil to near $200. For the first time, the word depression is openly being used in Washington and London to describe the potential impact of rapidly escalating oil prices to the economies of countries in the western world.

In Iraq, the situation has rapidly become untenable since the withdrawal of most the United States military in July. In fact, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki resigned yesterday amid growing chaos and instability in the country. Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi army of 10,000 militia now openly control the streets of Baghdad.

In fact, the front page of the New York Times shows the picture of al-Sadr as he declares his allegiance to the country of Iran. Meanwhile, an Iraqi civil war between Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims has been ongoing for the last two months. Hardly a day now goes by that a new atrocity is not reported by the worldwide press. It is also being reported that Iranian troops are consolidating near the Iraq border. An invasion of Iraq by Iran may now be only days away.

In Saudi Arabia, the House of Saud is in trouble. Shia Muslims are in open revolt while pledging loyalty to the new dominant power in the Middle East and their Shia brethren in Tehran. Al- Qaeda’s influence in the country is growing as evidenced by the increasing unrest. The terrorist group is actively looking for an end to the reign of the ruling Saudi royal family.

Iran has been even more belligerent than usual in the last several days. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad states that he will declare war on Israel if they bomb any Iranian nuclear facility. He repeated his previous vow to wipe the Zionist entity Israel off of the map and again insisted that the cancerous growth called Israel would soon disappear.

Numerous intelligence sources have indicated that, irrespective of three United Nations resolutions containing sanctions, Iran may now be only less than two years away from having a nuclear bomb. Despite these disturbing intelligence reports, the United Nations will not support additional sanctions to stop Iran from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Iran continues to receive support from Russia and China in the United Nations Security Council. The New York Times reports that an effort to introduce further sanctions initiated by the United Kingdom and the United States has just failed..

Iran has also been bolstered by its recent public alliance with Syria and its President Bashar al- Assad. Even though Syria has been aiding Iran for years by supporting the terrorist organization, Hezbollah, the declared public alliance between the two countries is alarming indeed. In a war to come, Syria would like to take the Golan Heights from Israel as a fresh water source and strategic security point for Damascus.

In Israel, rumors abound that the new Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is about to bomb strategic Iranian nuclear facilities both above and below ground. Israel has been in a constant state of attack for months from the Iranian sponsored terror groups of Hamas and Hezbollah. Last week for the first time a Hezbollah rocket reached into Tel Aviv. Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah has referred to Israel again as a “temporary country.”

I finished reading the newspaper stories in time to watch the televised press conference of United States President Barack Obama concerning the escalating crisis in the Middle East. The young President has been severely criticized in recent days for his inexperience in the affairs of United States foreign policy. Many think honoring his Presidential election campaign pledge of immediate military withdrawal from Iraq has greatly contributed to this escalating crisis.

However, there were additional factors that led to the United States military withdrawal. American troops in Iraq were needed to stabilize the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan where NATO forces have failed to secure peace. The truth is the nations of western Europe never made the necessary troop commitment in the country.

In addition, American’s had grown weary of spending all of the country’s treasure in support of the administration of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. His unstable, dysfunctional government was never very effective in creating a governing consensus among the various ethnic factions in Iraq.

In the press conference, President Obama read a statement about the need for dialogue with all the different leaders in the region and about the power of hope. It is clear that this Middle East crisis is about to get worse. In retrospect, the invasion of Iraq by George Bush (43) may turn out to be a military blunder of historic proportions.

The stark reality is that after our recent military withdrawal from the region that it is too late for dialogue to avoid war in 2009. As for hope, it sounded great in last November’s 2008 Presidential election sound bites. However, like Republican John McCain’s dubious, costly, open-ended plan which may have required the military to be in Iraq for the next fifty to one hundred years, “hope” was never a realistic strategy for peace in Iraq or the Middle East.



By: James William Smith

About the Author:

beth m asked:


just wondering