View Full Version : Questions about 30 Days for a Tradeable Currency before the DFI Expires
05-29-2011, 06:40 PM
So here's a question for all you DS-ers, and I'd love to hear from you!
We've all heard it bantered around that Iraq must have a tradeable, internationally recognized currency 30 days PRIOR to the end of the DFI, which technically occurs June 30, 2011, unless it's pushed back again -- that would mean June 1-ish.
Now, I know Medic has said Shabibi is not concerned about the DFI expiring, but I'd like to know WHERE we get this notion of 30 days prior.
Is this from Article IV of the IMF agreements, Section 2, A?
But what does that have to do with the UN?
I've always tried to understand this whole 30 days prior notion, and if someone could provide me with some reasons why, I'd love to hear them! Thanks so much!
Not shure about the 30 day, but heard Obama signed off on extending the DFI protection for another year.
05-29-2011, 09:44 PM
No knowledge of a 30 day prior rule. I do know that the Pres did not extend DFI since it is not his call - that is a UN sanction and can only be extended by the UN. Pres extended the EOs pertaining to assets frozen post invasion. Removal from Ch 7 will obsolesce DFI so watch Kuwait/Iraq actions.
05-29-2011, 09:51 PM
Your exactly right got-ur-back....the exstension of the dfi is the un's call, not obama, and the un has already notified iraq there will be no exstension. I am not aware of anything pertaining to iraq having a tradeable currency 30 days prior to the exspiration of the dfi.
05-29-2011, 10:21 PM
Thanks to all! I've heard people on this site throw around a thirty-day out thing as a stipulation of IMF Articles of Agreement IV and VIII, but I've never really agreed with it, so I tried to research it myself, and the only "30 days" thing mentioned does not apply to a tradeable currency in my opinion. I think it's wishful thinking. Concerning EO 13303, which Obama did extend -- separate from the DFI protections -- I believe only parts of it are extended for a year, some other parts are due to be "reviewed" by O's team, and may possibly be extended a year as needed. Again, I don't think that has anything to do with an RV, per se, but I think people are trying to find something that would "force" an RV, and I just don't think something like that exists. Iraq will RV when Iraq wants to RV, or is ready per their GOI. I just don't see something or some agency forcing Iraq -- that would've already happened. So all the DFI, EO, Article VIII, Chapter 7, OFAC list is barking up the wrong tree -- just in my most humble of opinions. My point in this thread is if I'm wrong, I'd love to be corrected by one of you lovely people! Thanks for the comments, I appreciate your taking time!
I stand corrected: Thank you seting me strait. I knew he extended something.
05-30-2011, 01:09 AM
Good question hrlquin! A good review and learning experience for all of us. Okay, next question please, lol!
05-30-2011, 01:55 AM
So far not extended by the UN, and I had thought there was an article out saying Shabbs or Saleh didnt want the 6 month extension back in December.
05-30-2011, 03:41 AM
hrlquin831, this might be where the "30 Days Prior" came into to play. It had nothing to do with the DFI. The only place I remember hearing "30 day prior" was in reference to making payments to the IMF. It was said that Iraq needed to have a Tradable Currency 30 Days Prior to making their 1st loan payment to the IMF. Seems to me that around the end of 2009 or 2010 we were on watch for several items that were linked to a possible RV, DFI and Loan Payments were on the list. I think some may have crossed the two with some wishful thinking. Just a thought.
05-30-2011, 05:11 AM
they had to have a place to transfer money into 30 days prior......they have done that..have bank accounts in USA, the 1 yr extension is on money in the usa banks. I dont know where or who is saying must have a tradable currency 30 days prior.. its just wishful thinking.... the post are here from last month I believe telling when the set up bank accts..... I could be wrong on this of cource.lol if so someone correct me.. this was a great question , keepem comming..
Where the DS light of truth shines, no supposition or rumor ungrounded takes root! Your classic approach to define scientific fact as an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts is very very good. Your approach reminds me of Winston Churchill who said "The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is."
well said with your permission i will use Churchill's quote talking to juries
06-02-2011, 12:04 AM
Yeah, Neo, what NTG said. I hadn't noticed you'd responded so sweetly to my foolish questions -- very kind, and thank you!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2016 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.