![]() Tuesday, Dec 03, 2002 |
| International | ||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | International
By Sridhar Krishnaswami
This at the time was a mere fraction of the total cost. The point made in The Post and generally known for quite some time is that if the total cost of the military campaign against Iraq is going to be quite high this time around, nearly all of it would have to be borne by Washington for the simple reason that few in the international community are lining up for support, diplomatically and financially, as many did during the 1991 showdown. In 1991 several countries including in Europe, Asia and the Arab world were behind the then U.S. President, George H. W. Bush, as he took on Iraq's Saddam Hussein. The support came by way of extending personnel and material, the use of facilities or in opening out the chequebook. The United States' share of the 1991 war costs came to about 12 per cent, or only marginally higher than the 10 per cent shelled out by Japan. This time around the present Bush administration has few countries even understanding why it is that Washington is itching for a military showdown much less joining the political bandwagon, opening out the facilities or in a willingness to write the cheques. The Post makes the point that the direct war cost alone is not the only thing that the American tax payer is going to pick up.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | Home |
Copyright © 2002, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|