BinZiad
17-11-2002, 11:56
Subject: King Fahdso - Guardian of the Crusaders and Zionists spent $49 billion of the Ummah's wealth to attack Iraq in the First Gulf War
If any proof was needed that $aud's Arabia is all about destroying Islam and the Ummah, here it is...A staggering $49 bn was spent on fighting Iraq in the First Gulf War.
http://search.ft.com/search/article...query=%22carola
+hoy
os%22&vsc_appId=totalSearch&state=Form
MIDDLE EAST & AFRICA: US finds few friends willing to share war burden
By Carola Hoyos in New York
Financial Times; Nov 15, 2002
With inspectors going back into Iraq next week, many countries which might be called upon to assist in any US military action are hoping the threat of war can be averted.
If the Iraq crisis ends in war however, the level of help the US is
likely to receive, in military and financial terms, will partly depend on the role the UN Security Council plays in authorising the action. But even with firm UN support, many potential US allies will find it difficult to be as generous financially and militarily as they were in the Gulf war.
That war was a relative bargain for the US, with a price tag of
$60bn-$70bn, of which its allies, such as Japan, Germany, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait paid 80 per cent, leaving US taxpayers footing a $12bn-$14bn bill. On the military front, 500,000 US troops were joined by 160,000 from allied nations in a coalition that included countries as diverse as Denmark, Bangladesh, Oman and South Korea.
With the international service men and women also came aircraft, tanks, warships, engineering units, medical supplies, and support services.
This time, many potential allies have economic difficulties and their
military forces are stretched thin by commitments from Aghanistan to the Balkans, meaning the US is likely to have to shoulder significantly more of the burden.
There is continued wariness in many quarters about the prospect of a war with Iraq. Many countries see last week's resolution as the first stage in a two-step process and will wait to see whether the Security Council gives military action its blessing if Baghdad bungles its last chance at peace and refuses to disarm.
If that happens, the financial burden of a war is estimated at anything from $50bn to more than $100bn, depending on the size of the force and the length of the conflict. The US Congressional Budget office has estimated the cost of deploying troops to the region at $9bn-$13bn, with a war costing $4bn-$9bn a month.
Many of the most generous supporters of the Gulf War are feeling the pinch.
The prospect of Japan being asked to bankroll another war in the Gulf would touch sensitive nerves.
Since the September 11 attacks, Japan has sought to counter accusations of chequebook diplomacy in 1991 by offering to play an active part in supporting the US-led "war on terror" both militarily and financially. However, an Iraqi campaign would carry thorny domestic political consequences.
Foremost of these is a constitutional ban on waging any kind of war. But the electorate is also reluctant to pay for overseas actions at a time when the economy is ailing.
Germany has made clear that it would not support military action in Iraq, even if it were approved by UN mandate. Though the country contributed generously in 1991, this time financial help seems unlikely - both because of Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's determined opposition to military intervention, and the poor state of government finances.
***********************
Saudi Arabia's government is leaving its options open and will decide whether to give any assistance depending on the circumstances and whether a second UN resolution authorising force is passed by the Security Council. But Riyadh no longer has the means to be generous, after paying an estimated
$49bn toward the cost of the 1991 war. ***********************
The direct Saudi contribution to US costs was put at $16.8bn. But the cost of many of the facilities granted to the US, including free aviation and other fuel as well as free food and accommodation, was carried either directly by the government, or came in the form of payments to Saudi suppliers and contractors.
Public opinion today, Saudis say, is a far cry from the largely passive acquiescence to a massive US military presence in 1991.
Nevertheless, Riyadh is expected to maintain its policy of granting US forces base rights and overflight facilities for operations which have been cleared by the UN security council.
Even some of Washington's less reluctant allies, such as Australia and New Zealand, are likely to struggle to offer more than modest help. Both countries sent troops to Afghanistan, the Gulf and East Timor, though the October 12 bombings in Bali have led to calls in some quarters for a greater emphasis on regional security rather than on supporting action against Iraq.
However, analysts say that at least Australia would be likely to
contribute militarily, although it would probably be relatively modest.
Meanwhile, Russia is unlikely to play any significant part in military
action, for both practical and ideological reasons.
While it voted in favour of the Security Council resolution on weapons inspections, it has stressed the importance of a diplomatic solution.
What Moscow does possess is valuable on-the-ground intelligence which has been largely missing for the west; as well as the strong contacts cultivated through both politicians and business leaders who have maintained links over
the years with the regime of Saddam Hussein. The likelihood of their sharing such information is open to question.
Meanwhile, some European Union countries, including France, Spain and Italy, as well as a number of former Warsaw Pact countries, are likely to again offer the US important specialist services.
France led the opposition in the Security Council to an automatic
"trigger" for military action, but could be expected to respond positively to a US request for assistance if it agreed Iraq was in significant breach of its disarmament obligations. But like Germany, France faces significant budgetary constraints if its deficit is not to breach the European Central Bank ceiling of 3 per cent of GDP.
In eastern Europe, a 250-strong Czech chemical, biological and radiation weapon protection unit served in the 1991 Gulf war and is currently with the US-led Enduring Freedom operation in Kuwait. Poland's most important contribution in 1991, its intelligence co-operation with the US and other Nato Allies, could again be offered this time.
One other thing will not change from 1991: the important role of the UK. London has offered the US a "significant" force to support military action against Iraq.
The offer is not conditional on a second UN resolution. The UK
government considers the resolution agreed last week gives it legal authority to take action to enforce its conditions. But ministers insist a detailed military commitment will be made only if Saddam Hussein breaches the terms of the resolution. Reporting by David Ibison in Tokyo, Haig Simonian in Berlin, Robert Graham in Paris, Robin Allen in Dubai, Andrew Jack in Moscow, Robert
Anderson in Prague, John Reed in Warsaw, Virginia Marsh in Sydney and Jean Eaglesham in London www.ft.com/iraq
If any proof was needed that $aud's Arabia is all about destroying Islam and the Ummah, here it is...A staggering $49 bn was spent on fighting Iraq in the First Gulf War.
http://search.ft.com/search/article...query=%22carola
+hoy
os%22&vsc_appId=totalSearch&state=Form
MIDDLE EAST & AFRICA: US finds few friends willing to share war burden
By Carola Hoyos in New York
Financial Times; Nov 15, 2002
With inspectors going back into Iraq next week, many countries which might be called upon to assist in any US military action are hoping the threat of war can be averted.
If the Iraq crisis ends in war however, the level of help the US is
likely to receive, in military and financial terms, will partly depend on the role the UN Security Council plays in authorising the action. But even with firm UN support, many potential US allies will find it difficult to be as generous financially and militarily as they were in the Gulf war.
That war was a relative bargain for the US, with a price tag of
$60bn-$70bn, of which its allies, such as Japan, Germany, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait paid 80 per cent, leaving US taxpayers footing a $12bn-$14bn bill. On the military front, 500,000 US troops were joined by 160,000 from allied nations in a coalition that included countries as diverse as Denmark, Bangladesh, Oman and South Korea.
With the international service men and women also came aircraft, tanks, warships, engineering units, medical supplies, and support services.
This time, many potential allies have economic difficulties and their
military forces are stretched thin by commitments from Aghanistan to the Balkans, meaning the US is likely to have to shoulder significantly more of the burden.
There is continued wariness in many quarters about the prospect of a war with Iraq. Many countries see last week's resolution as the first stage in a two-step process and will wait to see whether the Security Council gives military action its blessing if Baghdad bungles its last chance at peace and refuses to disarm.
If that happens, the financial burden of a war is estimated at anything from $50bn to more than $100bn, depending on the size of the force and the length of the conflict. The US Congressional Budget office has estimated the cost of deploying troops to the region at $9bn-$13bn, with a war costing $4bn-$9bn a month.
Many of the most generous supporters of the Gulf War are feeling the pinch.
The prospect of Japan being asked to bankroll another war in the Gulf would touch sensitive nerves.
Since the September 11 attacks, Japan has sought to counter accusations of chequebook diplomacy in 1991 by offering to play an active part in supporting the US-led "war on terror" both militarily and financially. However, an Iraqi campaign would carry thorny domestic political consequences.
Foremost of these is a constitutional ban on waging any kind of war. But the electorate is also reluctant to pay for overseas actions at a time when the economy is ailing.
Germany has made clear that it would not support military action in Iraq, even if it were approved by UN mandate. Though the country contributed generously in 1991, this time financial help seems unlikely - both because of Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's determined opposition to military intervention, and the poor state of government finances.
***********************
Saudi Arabia's government is leaving its options open and will decide whether to give any assistance depending on the circumstances and whether a second UN resolution authorising force is passed by the Security Council. But Riyadh no longer has the means to be generous, after paying an estimated
$49bn toward the cost of the 1991 war. ***********************
The direct Saudi contribution to US costs was put at $16.8bn. But the cost of many of the facilities granted to the US, including free aviation and other fuel as well as free food and accommodation, was carried either directly by the government, or came in the form of payments to Saudi suppliers and contractors.
Public opinion today, Saudis say, is a far cry from the largely passive acquiescence to a massive US military presence in 1991.
Nevertheless, Riyadh is expected to maintain its policy of granting US forces base rights and overflight facilities for operations which have been cleared by the UN security council.
Even some of Washington's less reluctant allies, such as Australia and New Zealand, are likely to struggle to offer more than modest help. Both countries sent troops to Afghanistan, the Gulf and East Timor, though the October 12 bombings in Bali have led to calls in some quarters for a greater emphasis on regional security rather than on supporting action against Iraq.
However, analysts say that at least Australia would be likely to
contribute militarily, although it would probably be relatively modest.
Meanwhile, Russia is unlikely to play any significant part in military
action, for both practical and ideological reasons.
While it voted in favour of the Security Council resolution on weapons inspections, it has stressed the importance of a diplomatic solution.
What Moscow does possess is valuable on-the-ground intelligence which has been largely missing for the west; as well as the strong contacts cultivated through both politicians and business leaders who have maintained links over
the years with the regime of Saddam Hussein. The likelihood of their sharing such information is open to question.
Meanwhile, some European Union countries, including France, Spain and Italy, as well as a number of former Warsaw Pact countries, are likely to again offer the US important specialist services.
France led the opposition in the Security Council to an automatic
"trigger" for military action, but could be expected to respond positively to a US request for assistance if it agreed Iraq was in significant breach of its disarmament obligations. But like Germany, France faces significant budgetary constraints if its deficit is not to breach the European Central Bank ceiling of 3 per cent of GDP.
In eastern Europe, a 250-strong Czech chemical, biological and radiation weapon protection unit served in the 1991 Gulf war and is currently with the US-led Enduring Freedom operation in Kuwait. Poland's most important contribution in 1991, its intelligence co-operation with the US and other Nato Allies, could again be offered this time.
One other thing will not change from 1991: the important role of the UK. London has offered the US a "significant" force to support military action against Iraq.
The offer is not conditional on a second UN resolution. The UK
government considers the resolution agreed last week gives it legal authority to take action to enforce its conditions. But ministers insist a detailed military commitment will be made only if Saddam Hussein breaches the terms of the resolution. Reporting by David Ibison in Tokyo, Haig Simonian in Berlin, Robert Graham in Paris, Robin Allen in Dubai, Andrew Jack in Moscow, Robert
Anderson in Prague, John Reed in Warsaw, Virginia Marsh in Sydney and Jean Eaglesham in London www.ft.com/iraq