As reported in today's Scotsman:
thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Ange...-Scottish.3902698.jp

Once again New Labour tries to justify their support for the Iraq war by hiding behind the troops.

And once again Salmond makes the correct call:

"Des Browne should be apologising to everyone in the country for being part of the disgraceful decision five years ago to drag us into an illegal war on a false prospectus. And he should apologise to every service family for breaking the military covenant by scrapping the historic Scottish regiments," he said.

"It is nonsense to imagine that these brave men and women, who come from all the communities of Scotland, differ in their views from their friends, families and the population at large about the fact that Tony Blair took the country into an unlawful war on bogus information."

Robin, I'm sure that if you ask any of the British service personel, (whether they be Scottish, English, Welsh, or whatever), what they thought about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, most would tell you the same thing, that they are proud to serve their regiment and country, but that this war is wrong, and they shouldn't be there.

Five years down the line and what has been achieved?.....Well all that Bush can come up with is, "Through our endeavours and perseverance we have managed to install democracy in that part of the world"........ God bless America.
All that Broon says is that he is proud of our forces and that they are doing a great job in the most difficult conditions, but in reality doesn't give them the support that they need.

This whole sorry episode has been a disaster from beginning to end and those responsible should be held to account.
I'm sure that most of the service personel will agree with that.

While dozens of U.S. corporations have received contracts for reconstruction work in Iraq, the seven largest contracts went to:

Parsons Corporation of Pasadena, CA ($5.3 billion);

Fluor Corporation of Aliso Viejo, CA ($3.75 billion);

Washington Group International of Boise, ID ($3.1 billion);

Shaw Group of Baton Rouge, LA ($3 billion);

Bechtel Corporation of San Francisco, CA ($2.8 billion);

Perini Corporation of Framingham, MA ($2.5 billion);

Contrack International, Inc. of Arlington, VA ($2.3 billion).

Let's not forget Halliburton and the $10.8 billion (2004) the company billed the Pentagon for logistics work in the Middle East.

By comparison UK companies are small potatoes:

TOP TEN UK COMPANIES

1. AMEC £500m (approx)
www.amec.com/
Construction
Subcontractor on $154m Fluor contract to restore electrical power systems (Feb 2004)2
Joint contract with Fluor to 'provide design-build services for construction, rehabilitation,
operation, and maintenance of power generation facilities' $500m from USAID (March 11
2004)3
Joint contract with Fluor to 'provide design-build construction services for water resource
projects in the northern and southern regions of Iraq' $500m and $600m from USAID
(March 11 2004)4
Unknown sum from Centcom contract;5
'Federal spending in Iraq has helped Amec make a positive start to 2005.' (May 2005)6

2. Aegis £246.5m+
www.aegisworld.com/
Private security
Three-year $430m Pentagon contract to coordinate military/security companies in Iraq: 'a workforce the size of a military division; and may rank as the largest corporate military ever assembled' (June 2004, extended by another year in 2005).'7
Turnover of Aegis has gone from £554,000 (2003), to £62m (2005); three-quarters of this from work in Iraq.8

3. Erinys £86m+
www.erinysinternational.com/
Private security
$50m from US Army Corps of Engineers. $100m to protect oil fields (2003 to December 2004)9

4. Petrel Resources (Anglo-Irish) £56.6m
www.petrelresources.com/
Petroleum

5. HSBC £36.88m (stake in Dar es Salaam bank)
www.hsbc.com/
Financial
Has bought 70% of Dar es Salaam Investment Bank, (which has assets of $91.1m)12. HSBC share is therefore £36,881,225. HSBC profit from Middle East business rose 25% in 2004.13

6. Cummins UK £25.8m+
www.cummins.com/eu/pages/en/distributors/uk/index.cfm
Power
$45m from sale of power stations.14 'To date we have supplied four power stations: 2MW for the Forum in Baghdad, 4MW for the El Rasheed Hotel (USAID), 5MW for the airport and 8MW for the US army.'

7. PB Power £24.88m
www.pbworld.com/
$43.4 'Provide program management office support for the electrical services sector'
(March 10 2004).15

8. Control Risks £23.5m+
www.crg.com/
Private security
Unknown proportion of $500m; subcontractor for Parsons USAID buildings contract.16
(March 2004)
£23.5m from UK government for protection squads; figure disputed by CR (March 2004)17
'one of the largest British PSCs in Iraq'18; 2004 turnover £80m19. Has over 250 personnel in Iraq (June 2005)20.

9. MerchantBridge £22.07m (capitalisation)
www.mbih.com
Financial 'lead advisor' to Iraq Ministry of Industry and Minerals for factory lease programme (Jan
2004)21
Launched Mansour Bank (Sep 2005), capitalised at $38.5m; 90% from Iraqi investors.22

10. Global Risk Strategies £15.4m (at least)
www.globalrisk.uk.com/
Private security
Has 2,000 staff in Iraq.23 Received $27m contract to distribute new Dinar (May 2004).24
Guarded part of Baghdad airport (May 2004).25

Lest we forget:

Some balance:

www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7468.htm

Since most Scottish troops are more likely to die on the NATO mission in Afghaistan or the Balkans:-

A discussion of NATO
www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5086

Its just empty rhetoric from Salmond. What's he going to do? If Scotland became independent after the next election will he withdraw from NATO and the EU defence force? Is this part of the SNP manifesto?

And even if it was after the "Trump Affair" can you really see 'oor Eck' standing up to Westminster, NATO allies and more importantly the US and saying "Sorry guys we're not going to let you have our troops anymore"?

By all means let's have an open debate about a Scottish defence force, and when such a force is set up will our supreme commander , who ever he, or she, may be really tell his generals that they must consult with their "grunts" before deciding when and where to deploy?

GET REAL! He knows that idea's a nonsense. Would he, as commander-in-chief make his strategic decisions on the basis of how happy or otherwise his troops would be? As his electors would we expect him to?

Westminster (well that war criminal Blair actually) have just committed to spending £70 billion to renew the Trident fleet.

In an independent Scotland will the SNP commit to telling them to take their subs elsewhere? Can you really see the US and UK defense industries and their political muscle saying "ok"?
But then when push came to shove behind closed doors do you think any anti-Trident anti-NATO proposal would ever make it onto the manifesto of ANY mainstream party in Scotland?

Because he can talk about what the troops think till the cows come home but he knows full well that when Washington whistles he'll jump through hoops for some US investment and oil supplies like the rest of them.

Just in case you folk didn't know, police are also being sent to Kosovo, Iraq, Darfur, & Afghanistan - it doesn't seem to be public knowledge.