September 16, 2004

COST

I just heard part of John Kerry's speech to the National Guard, just the live snippet that the news played. In it he criticized the President, saying that 95% of the cost of the Gulf War was paid by our allies. That was shocking to me, so I looked it up. The two figures I found amounted to only 88%, so I'm not sure how he got 95%. But still, 88% is a big number. A closer look revealed that more than half of the cost was shouldered by Kuwait (makes sense) and Saudi Arabia. I'm not sure I want Saudi Arabia considered one of our "allies", as Kerry's speech classified them. Japan paid a big chunk of change in 1991, much appreciated, and Korea paid a bit. Germany forked over a bit more than $5 million. Appreciated too, but I'm not sure what point Kerry is trying to make today. He criticizes the President for not getting our "allies" to help pay in 2004 like they did in 1991, but France isn't even on the list. And isn't that really who we always mean when we talk about "getting allies on our side"? And would we really be happier with the current war in Iraq if Saudi Arabia were helping to foot the bill? I'm not sure I would be.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:07 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Another example of Liberals seeing only what they WANT to see, and not the whole picture. Now for the other side of the coin: since you're in a looking-things-up mood, did we make any HUGE loans or concessions to any countries right around the time they were "paying" for the cost of the Gulf War? (The US "persuaded" the World Bank to forgive Egypt's $14 billion debt and dropped our opposition to the Bank making huge loans to Iran, for starters.)

Posted by: CavalierX at September 16, 2004 06:20 PM (sA6XT)

2 You poor, poor things, you're really confused aren't you? The Bush II administration clearly vastly underestimated what this war would cost (it will be more than double the first war), but we had a real coalition the first time and they helped deferr the costs. This time we're assuming the entire cost for what Bush claims is making the world a safer place. Isn't that rather stupid? Sadly, yes.

Posted by: bushgirlsgonewild at September 16, 2004 07:44 PM (vzHiG)

3 IT's a shame that we couldn't get some of our old friends to shoulder the monetary burden . But then again since they did the last time even our good friends in the UK woudln't allow us to take Baghdad or do anything about Saddam . As the world goes on and on about how this war is so horrible an even worse thing happens in Darfur and other places where they turn a blind eye. Amazing isnt it. But then again , if there's something to be done . The US must lead the way or no one goes and does much of anything.

Posted by: MorningSun at September 17, 2004 01:52 AM (EPBbn)

4 Learn history, read, do something rather than display your inability to research to the entire world 'cos France sent troops to Gulf War I! Sorry for being heavy but I feel like you must have watching CNN World.

Posted by: Tadhgin at September 29, 2004 03:46 AM (eoRrs)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
44kb generated in CPU 0.26, elapsed 1.2968 seconds.
49 queries taking 1.2326 seconds, 201 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.