more opinion from Enorrste...
I agree with Kirk primarily. However, let's look at this again:
article quote: "the U.S. administration strongly rejects Iraq's decision Ptsfir currency, or stop the daily auction of foreign currency, which is organized by the CBI."
I don't see anything here about the US objecting to raising the value of the dinar. What they object to is the stopping of the auctioning of foreign currency. The diplomat may not be aware that the CBI didn't just stop the auctions: what they did was move them to private banks, right? Therefore the guy is simply uninformed.
The remainder of the article talks about the weakness of the dinar in the world market and the fact that this needs to be remedied.
The only other mention of America is this:
article quote: "but the Americans are blocking efforts to zeroing damaged their economy and their companies from that. "
What the hell does that mean? How do we understand "blocking efforts to zeroing"? And whose economy and companies are damaged from "that", which presumably is the "zeroing"? It seems clear that the economy and companies damaged are in Iraq, not in America. Therefore, the Iraqi economy and companies were damaged when the US forced the devaluation of the dinar, adding the zeros. It follows, then that the statement is saying that the Americans, in "blocking efforts to zeroing" are trying to RAISE the value of the dinar rather than keep it low. In other words, the US is in favor of removing the zeros and are BLOCKING those who are exerting "efforts to [continue] zeroing.
Thus the US is on our side and want the removal of the zeros to proceed, but not at the expense of the auctions themselves. As Kirk stated, the US has nothing to gain by a weak dinar but has a lot to gain with a stronger dinar, which the remainder of the article deals with.
I would add the following to my comments above:
The fact that there is no direct attribution to a specific individual or individuals makes this very suspicious to me. Who is this "Iraqi diplomat?" And which "US Administration" could be referred to? The problem here is that an Iraqi diplomat has absolutely no say in the matter of foreign currency policy. This is the purview of the CBI only, as we have seen earlier. No mention is even made of a GOI representative having an opinion, which would certainly be more reasonable than an "Iraqi diplomat." Therefore, I am left feeling that this is nothing but an opinion piece without proper attribution to a reputable source.
Having said that, however, we also have to realize that the US has nothing to gain with a weak dinar and everything to gain with a strong one. Furthermore, it is not like the US to "dribble" out a statement on another country's currency policy. That just isn't done (well, there is the exception of China, which the US is really upset about and says so!). But it isn't like the US to even HAVE a view on most other country's currency policies. And when they DO have one, they are quite direct about it, as they have been with China, and the comments come from a Secretary in the Cabinet.
Therefore, I give this piece little or no weight at all in the discussion at hand. Without proper attribution it is a puff piece. Furthermore, unless it is understood as I just noted in my last post, it makes no sense at all, since the US created the mess in Iraq by reducing the dinar value and is on record as approving the "plan" for several years now, to raise its value. Since they aren't "in" Iraq anymore, they really have nothing to say about the matter, and it certainly runs against the grain for them to change opinion 8 years into the "plan."
Therefore, I conclude that a poor translation gives the impression that "someone" in the US is against the removal of the zeros project when in FACT what is being reported is that "someone" doesn't want the auctions to go away. The value of the dinar isn't directly mentioned with respect to an American position except in that cryptic comment "blocking efforts to zeroing". But it is the "zeroing" that damaged the economy of Iraq, so IF America was trying to block anything, it would be to STOP those who want to continue with a weak dinar rather than let it float.
...and in response to the "dribble"...there is no GCR and no NESARA and there is no conspiracy. The dollar floats and has done so for almost 40 years now. That is why its value is 95% LESS than it was in 1913 when the Fed was created. Do yourself a favor and ignore philosophyofmetrics.com. A simple google search of GCR will assure you that it is NOT a part of any IMF strategy.