Duns Scotus wrote:
Scotland 8% of the UK population, 11% of the UK war dead in Iraq.

Traquir wrote:
One source quoted that Alex Salmond was getting "too big for his boots". Clearly the Imperialistic Unionistas as barely able to contain their rage here. What they really wanted to say is that he is really getting ideas above his station getting involved in such reserved matters which Westminster is clearly much better qualified to handle. The real situation however is that Westminster has royally screwed up here and likely are embarrassed more than anything else that they have being exposed as bumbling buffoons who have been thoroughly incompetent . This whole thing was nothing more than imperialistic posturing to support the pretence that they are still some world power, but instead it has backfired to show them as just a sad little has-been ex-power. They waged an illegal war resulting in 10's of thousands of deaths of innocents and have succeeded in creating a breeding ground for terrorism and continued misery for 100's of thousands for decades to come. They have zero moral authority. The Scottish Government can better serve the troops by building up pressure for their safe return as soon as possible, rather than go on some British Bulldog posturing "go and the see the troops" publicity stunt. The troops should never have been there and they should be removed now. The Unionistas clearly have no appreciation of the depth of revulsion they are instilling by their actions and in particular the occupation of a foreign country. absolutely no

Wullie wrote:
''David Cairns said the end of the Union would "decimate" Scotland's defence industry, which sustained more than 30,000 jobs.'' David Cairns ex priest, now an all out warmonger. I thought Christians were suppose to love their fellow man. Confirmed batchelor David Cairns probably does a lot of that sort of thing in Londons soho.

Duns Scotus wrote:
Sorry Neil, we need to co-ordinate here. Scots deaths are 19 out of 175 UK dead. But you talk of casualties, so perhaps the wounded statistics back up your figures. That said, I also grieve for every one of the Iraqui dead (over one million perhaps?)

Last night, the First Minister's statement was labelled a disgrace by his political opponents, with the suggestion Mr Salmond was getting "too big for his boots

Proud to be Scottish wrote:

Traquir wrote:
One source quoted that Alex Salmond was getting "too big for his boots". Clearly the Imperialistic Unionistas as barely able to contain their rage here. What they really wanted to say is that he is really getting ideas above his station getting involved in such reserved matters which Westminster is clearly much better qualified to handle. The real situation however is that Westminster has royally screwed up here and likely are embarrassed more than anything else that they have being exposed as bumbling buffoons who have been thoroughly incompetent . This whole thing was nothing more than imperialistic posturing to support the pretence that they are still some world power, but instead it has backfired to show them as just a sad little has-been ex-power. They waged an illegal war resulting in 10's of thousands of deaths of innocents and have succeeded in creating a breeding ground for terrorism and continued misery for 100's of thousands for decades to come. They have zero moral authority. The Scottish Government can better serve the troops by building up pressure for their safe return as soon as possible, rather than go on some British Bulldog posturing "go and the see the troops" publicity stunt. The troops should never have been there and they should be removed now. The Unionistas clearly have no appreciation of the depth of revulsion they are instilling by their actions and in particular the occupation of a foreign country. absolutely no

What a spineless lot you are

Neil wrote:
Scaremongering nonsense indeed.

Browne should be made to explain why Scotland, with 9% of the UK's population, is sufferring 18% of the casualties in his illegal wars.

It is a grotesque truism that today – after all the posturing of our political midgets five years ago – we might at last be permitted a valid seance with the ghosts of the Second World War. Statistics are the medium, and the room would have to be dark. But it is a fact that the total of US dead in Iraq (3,978) is well over the number of American casualties suffered in the initial D-Day landings at Normandy (3,384 killed and missing) on 6 June, 1944, or more than three times the total British casualties at Arnhem the same year (1,200).

They count for just over a third of the total fatalities (11,014) of the entire British Expeditionary Force from the German invasion of Belgium to the final evacuation at Dunkirk in June 1940. The number of British dead in Iraq – 176 – is almost equal to the total of UK forces lost at the Battle of the Bulge in 1944-45 (just over 200). The number of US wounded in Iraq – 29,395 – is more than nine times the number of Americans injured on 6 June (3,184) and more than a quarter of the tally for US wounded in the entire 1950-53 Korean war (103,284).

Iraqi casualties allow an even closer comparison to the Second World War. Even if we accept the lowest of fatality statistics for civilian dead – they range from 350,000 up to a million – these long ago dwarfed the number of British civilian dead in the flying-bomb blitz on London in 1944-45 (6,000) and now far outnumber the total figure for civilians killed in bombing raids across the United Kingdom – 60,595 dead, 86,182 seriously wounded – from 1940 to 1945.

Indeed, the Iraqi civilian death toll since our invasion is now greater than the total number of British military fatalities in the Second World War, which came to an astounding 265,000 dead (some histories give this figure as 300,000) and 277,000 wounded. Minimum estimates for Iraqi dead mean that the civilians of Mesopotamia have suffered six or seven Dresdens or – more terrible still – two Hiroshimas.

Yet in a sense, all this is a distraction from the awful truth in Buchanan's warning. We have dispatched our armies into the land of Islam. We have done so with the sole encouragement of Israel, whose own false intelligence over Iraq has been discreetly forgotten by our masters, while weeping crocodile tears for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have died.

America's massive military prestige has been irreparably diminished. And if there are, as I now calculate, 22 times as many Western troops in the Muslim world as there were at the time of the 11th and 12th century Crusades, we must ask what we are doing. Are we there for oil? For democracy? For Israel? For fear of weapons of mass destruction? Or for fear of Islam?

We blithely connect Afghanistan to Iraq. If only Washington had not become distracted by Iraq, so the narrative now goes, the Taliban could not have re-established themselves. But al-Qa'ida and the nebulous Osama bin Laden were not distracted. Which is why they expanded their operations into Iraq and then used this experience to assault the West in Afghanistan with the hitherto – in Afghanistan – unheard of suicide bomber.

And I will hazard a terrible guess: that we have lost Afghanistan as surely as we have lost Iraq and as surely as we are going to "lose" Pakistan. It is our presence, our power, our arrogance, our refusal to learn from history and our terror – yes, our terror – of Islam that is leading us into the abyss. And until we learn to leave these Muslim peoples alone, our catastrophe in the Middle East will only become graver. There is no connection between Islam and "terror". But there is a connection between our occupation of Muslim lands and "terror". It's not too complicated an equation. And we don't need a public inquiry to get it right.

Proud to be Scottish wrote:
The wheels are beginning to come off the nat-wagon. How despicable of Salmond to undermine the confidence our boys have in doing their job. Go and tell your nonsense to the people of Iraq Alex, see what they would tell you.

Proud to be Scottish wrote:

Traquir wrote: One source quoted that Alex Salmond was getting "too big for his boots". Clearly the Imperialistic Unionistas as barely able to contain their rage here. What they really wanted to say is that he is really getting ideas above his station getting involved in such reserved matters which Westminster is clearly much better qualified to handle. The real situation however is that Westminster has royally screwed up here and likely are embarrassed more than anything else that they have being exposed as bumbling buffoons who have been thoroughly incompetent . This whole thing was nothing more than imperialistic posturing to support the pretence that they are still some world power, but instead it has backfired to show them as just a sad little has-been ex-power. They waged an illegal war resulting in 10's of thousands of deaths of innocents and have succeeded in creating a breeding ground for terrorism and continued misery for 100's of thousands for decades to come. They have zero moral authority. The Scottish Government can better serve the troops by building up pressure for their safe return as soon as possible, rather than go on some British Bulldog posturing "go and the see the troops" publicity stunt. The troops should never have been there and they should be removed now. The Unionistas clearly have no appreciation of the depth of revulsion they are instilling by their actions and in particular the occupation of a foreign country. absolutely no

What a spineless lot you are

Steve A wrote:
Kent
I am positive the labour apologists dont live in Scotland or are even Scottish a true Scotsman or woman wouldn't behave like these trolls!

Steve A wrote:
Stevie i never like to assume things about people but in your case i will make an exception! You seem to me to have a bit of the Margo macdonald about you IE she cant stand Alex because she fell out with him and the snp BUT! she still agrees 99% with what they stand for! AM i right or AM i right??

Steve A wrote:
Wullie
Whats Wardogs battle cry again?CRY HAVOC AND LET SLIP THE DOGS OF WAR! AAAARRRRRRRRGGGGG!!!
!