Quote from: Tracey on November 23, 2011, 07:05:19 PM
I had to look up Godwins law, I never heard that before. Miniar, I was hoping you would address Icelands military. As a NATO member, Iceland obviously isn't able to send combat troops. But there is certainly some financial or technical support being provided by Iceland, all member nations contribute. Some of NATOs recent moves have been assuming the lead role in Afghanistan, and the bombing of Libya. Iceland can hardly claim to have no involvement in these wars. Hugs, Tracey
When Iceland joined NATO in 49 there was something on the verge of a riot in front of our "senate" building. Eggs, rocks, dirt and anything else throwable rained down on the building and eventually police reserves were called to try and disperse the crowd. Teargas and all.
This was a result of a perceived denial of the people's will. The people didn't just want to say no, they wanted the right to vote on the matter specifically for themselves. They wanted this change from a stance of neutrality that the nation had held for as long as it had a stance at all to be put to referendum (in part so they, themselves, could say no, as a nation).
I do not believe that the general public of Iceland wants to be in NATO but views it as an "evil necessity" due to the commonly pushed propaganda that Iceland would be such an easy target outside of it that it'd simply be taken over by the first country to come along as well as due to the nonsensical idea that by being members of NATO the people's voice has a chance to be heard. This idea is utterly nonsensical because as it's been shown repeatedly that our "duly elected officials" tend to just go ahead and back USA up in whatever they say like the idiotic lap-dogs they are even if the majority of the nation protests. There was a pretty big public outcry for example when Icelandic politicians officially supported the invasion of Iraq as the nation wanted utterly nothing to do with it what so ever. And when it came to Libya there was a bit more debate but still it seemed most folk were vehemently opposed.
I am pretty sure that "evil necessity" is pretty much what caused Iceland to join NATO to begin with as it was in the year 1940 that the British quite literally invaded Iceland which had repeatedly stated that it was Neutral. It's strategic position and the fact that Germany showed it an awful lot of interest made the British understandably nervous so they came here uninvited and made themselves the base that which later became the "American" base in 41 (which Iceland agreed to as the US was still officially Neutral at this point).
In post WWII Iceland had been "kind-of" occupied for quite a while and when NATO was being formed there was a lot of "well, what's gonna stop 'em from doing it again?" mentality as well as a "this'll show we're in with the rest of the west and want peace and safety" (along with the all powerful dollar of course) which a lot of politicians propagated and I suppose (though I can't say for sure) that's the ideas that were behind their decision to force the nation into NATO. I suppose the whole "being a founding member" also was fueled a bit by the idea that being there from the beginning might guarantee the nation the chance to have a "voice"....
Opposition to NATO is pretty big in Iceland and has been since it joined.
In 2000 a survey showed 42% of the nation wanted to kick out the American military AND leave NATO, only 15% of the nation wanted to keep the American military presence as well as NATO. The rest wanted all military off of Iceland but still wanted to remain in NATO.
For 50 some years this was actually one of the hottest issues in Icelandic politics and at the end of the day, money won.
The US army payed rent, brought dollars, bought resources (food, power) and the American soldiers would go to Reykjavík and other towns around the base and buy flowers, treats, books, music, etc, etc, etc, etc...
They brought quite a bit of dollars and a lot of the people who wanted to keep 'em around were those few people who had enough money to want more money as well as those who's paycheck was to a fair degree payed by military customers.
Money probably will keep us in NATO for a long time still as a lot of things that have been built in Iceland have been built with the condition that NATO has full access to use it if it needs it.
See, Iceland hasn't payed NATO much, if anything, in way of funds or resources, but our position in the middle of the North Atlantic has strategic value for "defense" of NATO countries. This means that there are radar towers, an international airport, fiber optic cables and so on that have been built largely with NATO funds. If we were to leave NATO then NATO would be well within it's rights to call for a refund of these funds as well as compensation for the loss of defense structures.
This'd probably be more than enough cost to utterly and completely cripple the small Icelandic economy.
Quote from: Jen61 on November 23, 2011, 07:16:30 PM
Not to mention the pillage of Europe between the 8th and 11th centuries ! 
"just jocking"
*gasp!*
No seriously though.
These events aren't always correctly portrayed and people kind of tend to forget that most of the "vikings" were instead travelling merchants who sailed far and wide and traded their goods with people without discrimination or violence of any kind.
