Susan's Place Transgender Resources

What do you do to help stop wars? It seems there are few answers. This conversation started in "Roll call" and I thought it needed a home of its own.

Good point Tracey, I may have started to hijack the other thread, so I'll post again here.

I am anti-war and have been an active campaigner for a few years. I am opposed to both Iraq and Afghanistan, aswell as intervention in Libya and Kosovo. Basically I believe that western (or any for that matter) governments and ruling classes fight wars to serve their interests, not those of ordinary people. What I would call Imperialism, is not about peace, or humanitarian invention (an oxymoron in my opinion) but about money. The west doesn't worry about Somalia or piracy because it has an interest in world peace, but because it interferes with trade. A good example of this is that after the arab spring, William Hague (UK foreign minister) toured the countries that had recently overthrown their old governments, with him went 50 arms dealers seeking to make money.

However while I am opposed to Imperialist war, I am not a pacifist or against individual soldiers. Soldiers of boths sides are the poorest people, with the most to loose and the least to gain.

Personally i always thought that it was great having a wide variety of countries and ideologies. It gives balance to the world. If we didn't we would soon have a one world government and that would mean the people in power would be able to control more people. However, with the internet this idea of mine may be obsolete. I pray and help as best i can the occupy movement in hopes the people of the world will unite and take back power from the elite 1%. I did serve during vietnam but told my drill instructors in the marines i wouldn't kill anyone. they hated me for that and made my time in boot camp hell. One other guy spent his whole 4 yr enlistment in bootcamp as an example not to be like him. I did have an aviation gurantee. That allowed me to go to school and so i didn't go overseas. I trained to make the LOX the president (nixon) would breathe when flying above 20k ft. Soon as i was done school he resigned and many marines left and so did i. I then stayed silent for 25 yrs before i told people i was a veteran. Oh some people i could tell but not most. I then in 2006 did go to many antiwar ralleys in wash DC in the winter time. I collected over 8000 signatures of people asking iraq for forgiveness for what our country was doing to them. I used a 4 ft wide roll of tyvek and they signed on the white side. I still have that roll. (https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eons.com%2Fimages%2Fmembers%2F2007%2F6%2F29%2F4%2F3%2F4347313811107804541829_150.jpeg&hash=2d1a883e894b485a6d3c7dbee53133cf365aa68c) I worked hard to get Obama elected in hopes he would stop the wars like he promised but he has been too slow.. Anyway thats my story..

First, stop funding all of these wars. It's done under false pretenses.

Second, any corporation who supports these wars in any fashion should have pickets in front of them.

Third, 90% of all the military bases should be closed. Don't need many of them anyway.

Fourth, as citizens we should stop paying taxes. Half of your dollar funds the military.  

We need to protect American from terrorists.

This is an anti-war thread, as I'm sure you are aware.

Quote from: emoxon on November 12, 2011, 02:32:14 PM
This is an anti-war thread, as I'm sure you are aware.

Yeah, I started a pro war thread. Just because there needs to be an opposing view.

spoiled little rich girls gagggg

Quote from: Amazon D on November 12, 2011, 02:56:34 PM
spoiled little rich girls gagggg

Not really. I'm poor.

But I love my country and want to protect it.

Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on November 12, 2011, 03:06:57 PM
Not really. I'm poor.

But I love my country and want to protect it.

Protect it from who ?   

Ok your poor but you have mentioned your daddy isn't..

We could discuss this here or the pro-war thread, but I'd rather get the hits here in my thread! Ever since people could pick up rocks and sticks they've been fighting one another. It's hardwired into us, and to think it will go away because we're smarter now than we were yesterday is nice, but not realistic. You can see it in the posts above this one. First someone gets called a name, then we get a "what's that supposed to mean" and before you know it there's bullets and bombs! Let's all play nice, hugs, Tracey

I take your point. But war, in the sense that it is states fighting states, is more than just petty antagonism, its about politic objectives. When a state declares war, I would hope that it is for better reasons than that it's hardwired. Behind virtually all wars there is a dubious poltical agenda, one that is very rarely shared or explained to the people fighting it.

Kia Ora,

::) One possible way is to remove 'greed and corruption' from the minds of the masses[start this from a very young age-re-programme the mind] and what is there left to go to war about ?

Metta Zenda :)

The real war is when good people get taken adantage of by evil people and then other good people try to stop the evil people. Kinda like right now as anonymous (the hacker peeps) who are trying to right the wrongs put on the poor by those who are evil

Capitalism breeds war, it has to to survive. When countries are constantly fighting economically, war is just an extension of that. As Clauswitz said 'war is an extension of poltics, by other means'. Imperialism is about the control of profit, be it sugar in the caribbean in the 18th and 19th century, or oil in Iraq. Even war's which do not directly involve your country can still be profitable by selling weapons to each side.

The only way in my opinion to end war, is to overthrow a system that rewards geedy and punishes the weak. By having a system that is truly democratic and not run by the top 1%.

Zenda, people have fought since before currency, so what does greed have to do with it. War for profit is bad, but people have fought ever since they learned a branch over the head made Grog twitch.

Quote from: Tracey on November 12, 2011, 04:17:27 PM
Zenda, people have fought since before currency, so what does greed have to do with it. War for profit is bad, but people have fought ever since they learned a branch over the head made Grog twitch.

Kia Ora,

::) Greed is not all about money/currency....

Metta Zenda :)

I refer to Capitalism because we currently live in a capitalist world. Its true that there were other motivations for war in pre capitalist society, however few if any are the result of human nature. Such an argument doesn't apply to dayly life anymore than it applies to international relations. It also lets governments and ruling classes off the hook. I don't belive that a single one of the wars in the last century came about as a result of human nature. Each time there were economic and political agendas pusing for war. No one goes to war on a whim, it starts becasue the end result is seen to be profitable.

There was a civilization that buried their swords in the sand and when the invaders came they saw how easy they could kill them so they stopped and didn't kill them all. They would have all been killed had they fought..

Emoxon, you obviously know more about the subject than I do, and I shouldn't attempt to argue with you. But let me give it a shot! The wars in the last century may have ties to capitalism, but since the Industrial revolution, virtually everything has been tied to commerce. This is but a blip on the timeline of human conflict. I believe they merely overlap, and a millenium from now when capitalism no longer exists, we'll still be bashing each others brains out.

Quote from: Amazon D on November 12, 2011, 03:38:35 PM
Protect it from who ?   

Ok your poor but you have mentioned your daddy isn't..

Yeah, my dad is pretty rich. But I don't live with him.

Protect my country from aliens, giant praying mantises, godzilla, mothra, rodan, Rodan Bin Laden, Commies, teenagers, & draculas.

Emoxon, I wish you had stayed, I was enjoying the conversation. Farewell and best wishes, hugs, Tracey

The "Arab Spring" taken together with the "occupy wall street" movement are for the first time a true global movement, a very unique sociological phenomena triggered by the globalization of the planet.

With the exception of a few extreme radical religious or communist countries, the rest of the world are but infected by mercantilism greed. Mercantilism is as old a human, and IMO the motivator of invention and innovation by the needs of war.

We are at a crossroad in human history and it has nothing to do with 1% but rather with overpopulation. In ten or fifteen years at the most, larger scale global uprising will begin due to shortages of energy, food, and clean water. How the global powers (1%) handled those uprisings will determine the future of the planet for centuries to come.

Many scenarios can be contemplated, one possible scenario is that corporations and nations will decide to profit out of this shortages. This scenario could easily lead to nasty high intense local wars (more profits boys!). War or not war, in any scenario the underlaying problem remains: To many humans, not enough food, clean water, and/or energy !

The solution ? Short of a miracle (e.g. nuclear fusion), drastic population reduction ! but how ?


Jen61

Jen61, nothing like war to reduce the population! As you state, overpopulation leads to global food, water, and energy shortages. "Grog ate my berries! Whack!"

I have done a little military service... Infantry reserves only here in Canada.   I'm not a pacifist and believe that countries have the right to defend themselves. 

That being said, most current wars that the west is involved in seems tied to oil.  If the US (and Canada) would stop meddling in other nations conflicts, they would have a lot less to worry about.    Personally I believe that the US will be forced by financial reasons to downsize their military drastically in the next decade. 

Hugs
Zaria

Quote from: Tracey on November 13, 2011, 02:14:39 PM
Jen61, nothing like war to reduce the population! As you state, overpopulation leads to global food, water, and energy shortages. "Grog ate my berries! Whack!"

Kia Ora,

::) Many spiritual belief systems believe we are 'one' with nature="Mother Earth" ...So could Mother Nature  be manipulating the minds of  man with the thoughts of war, because She feels this is a quick but brutal way of creating harmony=balancing out life on this planet ?

After all, humans as far a life goes are only part of life[just one of living things on the this planet] not life itself....

::) Food for thought...[A bit far out but none the less a possibility-leave no stone unturned when looking for answers] ;)

Metta Zenda :)

Quote from: Tracey on November 13, 2011, 02:14:39 PM
Jen61, nothing like war to reduce the population!

Hi, Tracey,

Deaths by WWI = 15 Millions, deaths by flu pandemic of 1918 = 50 millions. Current estimated number of deaths to stabilize world population to sustainable number = 1,000 millions. No conventional war can produce that results; that lives without solution.

Jen61

We need to protect American from terrorists.
Are you suggesting that we use the army to: a) clean up Congress, b) drive the lobbyists into exile, and c) stop the Republican debates?  Interesting idea. 

In the 40some years I've been paying attention to such things the biggest terrorists America has to worry about all seem to all be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.  And if you really want to protect this nation from them the first step is not to elect them.


The current wars are about oil.  But the next set of wars is going to be about water.  (currently two, the long running problem in India/Pakistan in Kashmir is over water, the Siachen Glacier in particular, as well as being a huge part of the Golan Heights issue)

Robert Heinlein argued the perspective that all wars were fought for economic advantage (Starship Trooper). It is difficult not to agree. As for 'armies' protecting against terrorism; it doesn't, has never, and will not work. The war of the flea is an old book but still very true.

If a 'terrorist' is committed enough to be a suicide bomber, little will stop them, except luck in detecting them. I think I'm correct in saying that soldiers do not sign up to die. Terrorists do. There is a big difference in that concept.

Cindy

Personally i think the powers to be are reaching and grabing for what they can while they are simultaneously  reducing the masses of the populations access to goods through downsizing production and consumerism in the largest consumer countries.

Then when the poor become a blight to the rich they will be seen as not worthy of being allowed to exist since well they are a blight in the rich's eyes..

What means will they reduce our numbers i am not sure but it won't be by wars. (except it seems a war in the middle-east is inevitable due to religions control and desire for one) They are just a means for the powers that be to amass all they can in the mean time. China is amassing all it can right now in hopes it too is one of the powers to be at the end.. Then they like many other governments will reduce populations as they choose seeing it as the greater need to save the earth.

Oh they will allow some people to exist because they will be seen as agrarian types and not big consumer types..

Also the robot is near the point where it will make all the things the rich and powerful will need.

The USA is being lowered on the totem pole and the other countries are raising up their bases and well most think a big giant war will come but i doubt that because the powers to be will want to preserve some of human relics and will simple find another way to reduce the masses of the population..

However, along the way will come a antichrist like figure who will offer the masses of mankind a safety net while at the same time leading them all into their demise..

Finally either a alien / God will come to rescue us or well the powers to be will have a wonderful world with billions removed for earths salvation..

Where will you be is the question ?? Myself i am living near / with the amish who are an agrarian type of people and i have downsized my consumerism quite drastically.

A very long time ago there where no wars ! no strongholds.
Now *we (in most countries )* can elect the ones that represent *us*
*us* = the people,  but that is not you and me !
Elect mmmm NONE is saying my point .
All governments want more children born !  Even if the have no food or water.
All have hidden agenda,s .

PS. Tekla love your reply :)

Quote from: Tracey on November 11, 2011, 11:27:33 AM
What do you do to help stop wars? It seems there are few answers. This conversation started in "Roll call" and I thought it needed a home of its own.

Kia Ora Tracey,

1) Get the world's pharmaceutical  companies to collaborate and come up with a cheap safe and effective multipurpose  'Antidepressant'...

2) Get everyone to take a course in  vipassana  meditation...

Is it the happy or sad[depressed] person that starts more wars ?

Metta Zenda :)

Hi Zenda, I, for one, don't want to be doped up on anti-depressants! I started this thread because I sensed this whole conversation coming and didn't want it my "Roll call" thread, a place for veterans, families and friends. I'm not sure why Emoxon left, but I just picked a few words out of the air to start a topic. But I have enjoyed the cavespeak part! Hugs, Tracey

Quote from: Tracey on November 14, 2011, 05:18:35 PM
Hi Zenda, I, for one, don't want to be doped up on anti-depressants! I started this thread because I sensed this whole conversation coming and didn't want it my "Roll call" thread, a place for veterans, families and friends. I'm not sure why Emoxon left, but I just picked a few words out of the air to start a topic. But I have enjoyed the cavespeak part! Hugs, Tracey

Kia Ora Tracey,

::) The remark about the anti depressant was just to bring to your attention an important fact[in fact an irrefutable truth you could say] "happy and mentally stable people, don't 'intentionally' start wars ! They have too much to loose if they do= 'peace of mind'...

::) I believe the underline reason why we humans tend to start wars and commit atrocities is due in no small part to a somewhat 'unhappy' negative 'unstable' mind...hence the anti-depressant comment...However it's also a fact that for some people anti-depressants work, lifting them out of the doom and gloom of their depressed state-making their world seem a little brighter...World leaders are [for the most part] human and are also prone to the Western world's fastest grown disease=depression...

Many world leaders are good at the propaganda war and manipulating the population by social engineering, sadly once the seeds of war are planted 'mob mentality' tends to take over...

::) Until man understands himself [ The Buddha, Aristotle, Jesus all agreed on this simple truth] there will always be conflict, not only with others but within oneself and the latter is the hardest foe to conquer...

::) This is where Vipassana meditation[which is used both in spiritual and secular circles ] comes into play, it's been around for at least  two and a half thousand years it's weathered the test of time, many people in the West are reaping its benefits, but sadly not enough so it would seem...

People fear what they don't understand so to delve into the deep dark crevices of ones mind, bring for many the fear of losing one'self' when in fact there is no self to be lost...Only beneficial knowledge to gained..

So my response was not to mock your thread but to provide an insight that many tend to overlook/dismiss...

Like charity begins at home so peace begins within-it's a no brainer...By implementing this long term solution-starting with our children, by doing so will do away with the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff approach...


It won't happen over night, but it will could happen ! Fingers crossed XX XX


Metta Zenda :)   

People are no differnent than any other species on the planet in that they individually and collectively "fight" for resources. It Darwinism at it's finest and the strongest and smartest survive and procreate. It's ugly, brutal and every other nasty thing you can call it but it has ultimately led to the success of humans as a species although we have evolved to the point that we can create the technology to destroy all life on the planet.

Personally, I think there ARE some things worth fighting for, killing for and maybe even dying for.

Quote from: emoxon on November 11, 2011, 11:45:29 AM
Good point Tracey, I may have started to hijack the other thread, so I'll post again here.

I am anti-war and have been an active campaigner for a few years. I am opposed to both Iraq and Afghanistan, aswell as intervention in Libya and Kosovo. Basically I believe that western (or any for that matter) governments and ruling classes fight wars to serve their interests, not those of ordinary people. What I would call Imperialism, is not about peace, or humanitarian invention (an oxymoron in my opinion) but about money. The west doesn't worry about Somalia or piracy because it has an interest in world peace, but because it interferes with trade. A good example of this is that after the arab spring, William Hague (UK foreign minister) toured the countries that had recently overthrown their old governments, with him went 50 arms dealers seeking to make money.

However while I am opposed to Imperialist war, I am not a pacifist or against individual soldiers. Soldiers of boths sides are the poorest people, with the most to loose and the least to gain.

Normally I wouldn't post in a thread like this as usually people that only know each other online and are otherwise strangers will be more heavy handed with their opinions and that will send a thread like this spiraling into two camps vehemently against the other.

The reason I DID decide to comment is the highlighted section from your post.

I will have to disagree with you on that point. The only thing the US did NOT do correctly in Kosovo is intervene in time and with the proper forces. I personally watched Serbian militia trucks hauling off Kosovar Albanian civilians to an end I could only imagine in my worst nightmares and have a 7.62mm reminder just east of my spine as a memory of that ungodly place and time. Half of my best friends family perished there for no other reason than being born in the wrong place, following the words of a different deity.

What happened there (not unlike Rwanda, Sudan and many many other places) is beyond any semblance of humanity. I agree that involving ourselves in every corner of the world is not only imperialistic and something that we can not maintain, but what example are we showing when we let THOSE places bleed while we pour a trillion dollars and thousands upon thousands of both American and foreign lives into mistakes like Iraq.

War exists and will always exist as long as there are two people on the planet vying for resources, attention and/or supremacy of belief. That unfortunately will never end, but for me I would think that to show a semblance of civilization on our part and potentially an example to others, we would be able to help people and places that truly need our help and concentrate our efforts on uniting the civilized world in those efforts.

Alas, my deeply hidden idealism shows in that statement but I think we (pragmatically at least) need to pick a side and stick to it. We either commit to help or entrench at home and watch the world burn. You can't do a little of both.


On a side note, as far as the comment about keeping us safe here in America, if you think that this country's greatest enemies and harm to our people will come from abroad, I think you are living in a different nation than I. Lack of education, and opportunity, ignorance and apathy of the populace and a rapidly evolving two class system in which the plutocrats and oligarchs prey on that same ignorance and apathy I believe is a FAR greater threat than anything someone in a cave in Afghanistan can cook up.


I will don my flamesuit now as I am sure to have dripped out some kerosene around some folks with torches and pitchforks.

You can put away the fire retardant :laugh:

You make several very good points. Military action is a positive to save lives of the innocent. Kosovo is a fine example, and my sorrow for your loss and injuries. But I think we need to remove that, or regard that differently to warfare. As far as I'm aware is that the military action in Kosovo, for example, was just that, to protect people. With some disgusting failures that will forever be a blemish of the integrity of some countries troops, who allowed civilians to be lead away while 'under their protection'. But I will not add to the flames. War fare in Iraq and Afghanistan hid or hides behind the flag of helping people, in reality it is an economic war to keep oil for the USA, and presumably a few friends.

As for picking sides and staying I agree, Zimbabwe has been tortured to death by Mugabe, but there is no police action there, they have nothing that the USA and its allies want.

Cindy

I think it boils down to a simple question. Are people naturally violent? Is it built into our DNA?

I remember when I was a little kid watching two infants maybe about 2 yrs old. One was playing with a toy and the other reached out and took the toy away from the one started to play with it. The first started crying and tried to take it back and the second pushed the first.

I think this here is here is the basic and bare bones of why we have and will always have war.

The second reason why is just as Alfred told Bruce Wayne in Batman.. "Some people just want to watch the world burn."

The best way to stop war is to remove the profit from it.  There isn't a corporation in the world that will make weapons, fighter jets, war ships or battle gear if they can't make a profit.

All we have to do is vote out those politicians who hand money hand over fist to war defense contractors.  The rest will take care of itself.

Remove profit motive, eh? That didn't stop the USSR from invading Afghanistan.

No more ships? The nation with the largest navy controls the high seas and thus trade.

Roll over and play dead? Often dosent work for opossums.

Now why we need to spend TWICE as much as rest of the world combined is a point of debate for cost savings.

Quote from: Michelle. on November 21, 2011, 03:19:33 PM
Remove profit motive, eh? That didn't stop the USSR from invading Afghanistan.

No more ships? The nation with the largest navy controls the high seas and thus trade.

Roll over and play dead? Often dosent work for opossums.

Now why we need to spend TWICE as much as rest of the world combined is a point of debate for cost savings.

I know  am going to get so flamed for it, as it is a concept difficult to grasp, but no war no progress. It is in the genes.

I don't know if human nature is inherently violent, or just easily misled by those in power who desire far more power and will use others to those ends.

We can make a conscious choice of non-violence, and that is the action I choose.

Z

It's very easy to say you take a position of non violence in front of a computer with a cup of coffee in a heated house. When someone takes your computer, coffee, house, and everything else, and all that's left is a can of green beans, are you going to hand them over, or fight? We all will fight and kill for survival, war is just the grown up version of that.

Quote from: Tracey on November 21, 2011, 05:25:07 PM
It's very easy to say you take a position of non violence in front of a computer with a cup of coffee in a heated house. When someone takes your computer, coffee, house, and everything else, and all that's left is a can of green beans, are you going to hand them over, or fight? We all will fight and kill for survival, war is just the grown up version of that.

Actually i would hand the green beans over.. I have given away everything i own a few times in my life to hear better from the spirits above / God.. I have then been given more each time... I actually long to be in the next world.. but until then i am here doing as i am told..

"life here on earth is but a dream of the true spiritual world from whence we came and to where we will return"

Quote from: Tracey on November 21, 2011, 05:25:07 PM
It's very easy to say you take a position of non violence in front of a computer with a cup of coffee in a heated house. When someone takes your computer, coffee, house, and everything else, and all that's left is a can of green beans, are you going to hand them over, or fight? We all will fight and kill for survival, war is just the grown up version of that.

Making a choice for non-violence doesn't necessarily mean that one simply hands over everything. True non-violence is action, not passivity. Non-violent actions have overthrown repressive governments.

Most modern wars aren't about survival, they're about money, power, greed, oil. War begets more war. Killing begets more killing. Can humans try another way, before killing ourselves off and destroying our planet? Dialogue, listening to each other with compassion and empathy. Doing the hard work of finding true compromise that works for everyone.

Z

I spent a few minutes and googled "war" and "history of war." Blaming war on greed, capitalism, and governments is wrong. War existed before capitalism and governments, greed has probably always existed. Do a little homework, fighting is human nature. It's in us. Hugs, Tracey

Quote from: Tracey on November 21, 2011, 08:12:30 PM
I spent a few minutes and googled "war" and "history of war." Blaming war on greed, capitalism, and governments is wrong. War existed before capitalism and governments, greed has probably always existed. Do a little homework, fighting is human nature. It's in us. Hugs, Tracey

Believe me, I've done plenty of homework over the years. I've read numerous histories about wars; WWII, Civil war, Troy, bible. I've also read numerous books about philosophy of non-violence and its history. Somewhere I read that in written history, there have only been 39 years total of no war. I am profoundly (and sadly) aware that it is part of our human history. However, that doesn't mean we can't make a choice to be non violent.

I didn't actually say anything about capitalism and governments, I said money. Money can mean any assets, such as land, oil, water. Many wars are fought over supposed ideology, but if we dig deep, most are to gain control of an asset.

Here is one of the best things I've ever heard on non-violence.

Democracy Now: Utah Phillips talks about Ammon Hennasy and non-violence (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kcGenMRf1g#)

or w/ musical accompaniment by Ani DiFranco Utah Phillips Ani DiFranco Anarchy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6t6nzLX9gF4#)

Z

Nothing fuels "defense" better than fear.  Fear, even when it's unfounded or irrational, is a powerful tool.

Countries have existed for centuries that have never gone to war and haven't had to hand over their possessions.  Other countries hate the US because the US sticks its nose in everyone's business and calls it defense.  What we do is no different than the neighborhood bully charging into your home just to make sure you aren't planning to attack him.

Peace is a choice, just like war.

Quote from: Julie Marie on November 21, 2011, 09:23:58 PM
Nothing fuels "defense" better than fear.  Fear, even when it's unfounded or irrational, is a powerful tool.

Peace is a choice, just like war.

Kia Ora Julie,

::) So true, especially for those of us who able to acknowledge and live by this truism...Another truth is, some humans are more aggressive than others-which for the most part seems to be a 'learnt' behaviour... 

Metta Zenda :)

Uh, just what countries?

Switzerland maybe. But they have one heck of a geographical advantage. Maybe some of the smaller South American ones.

I'm Icelandic.
Iceland's a little island in the middle of the North-Atlantic.
It has about 350.000 people, and no army what so ever.
No navy either, nor air-force.

The only "wars" we've ever been "fought" was the "cod-wars", where our single little coast guard boat with one gun (corked!) would sail out to meet British naval vessels and attempt to shoo their fishing boats and navy out of our newly expanded waters (as we expanded our mileage to about the same as the rest of the world already had theirs).
Iceland won these "wars" not by force, but by tenacity and by winning over the public opinion, not only of Iceland, but of most of the world. In part with a simple comic sketch which featured a little rowboat with an Icelandic flag and a man with a toy gun surrounded by several British naval ships with all their big guns pointed down at the little man in his little boat.

There's a point there. It's that in these cases we're talking about western countries with ideals of fair play. If the British navy had fired upon the only coast guard ship Iceland had, a tiny boat by comparison to the massive destroyers, which only had one gun that was never fired, never even loaded, was actually corked the entire time, then the UK would have come off as this violent bully and brute that had nothing better to do with it's munitions than lay waste to an anthill, and for what? For waters they already had no claim to and didn't want to stop fishing in.
_

Iceland "was" indeed taken over by Denmark once in the past, but this was done without bloodshed.
It also won back it's independence without bloodshed.
A group of Icelandic politicians went to Denmark to negotiate with the Danish on something or another and there was a moment in that negotiation that every Icelander knows. A moment when one man stood up and spoke "Við mótmælum allir!" (We all object!)
This line stands for the Icelandic "battle" for independence.
The people made it's will know via their proxy.
Iceland became independent once more.
_

Now, how do I believe that we'll "end" all war?

I do not believe that attacking the symptoms will do anyone any good.
None of this "no more guns" business will really help, nor will "no more taxes!"

I believe that what we need to do, as a species, is to decrease financial and social inequality, increase education and make it available to all of us, regardless of financial or sociological background.
We need to get any and all "religious" influence out of education and we need education to be broad and fluent, allowing people to learn, not just parrot.
We need to encourage and reward critical thinking and kindness, not make excuses for ignorance and cruelty.
We need to be just, and fair, not propagate hate, us v.s. them mentalities and revenge ethics.

I believe that when we've accomplished all this that it's then and only then that we can foresee the end of war.
Sadly, I doubt this can be accomplished in my lifetime, not even within a single country, even if it were the most progressive country in existence today, because we're human and we're too invested in our inequalities, arrogance and ignorance. We're too busy believing we're "right" to admit that we're wrong.

Quote from: Miniar on November 22, 2011, 03:53:00 AM
I'm Icelandic.
Iceland's a little island in the middle of the North-Atlantic.
It has about 350.000 people, and no army what so ever.
No navy either, nor air-force.

The only "wars" we've ever been "fought" was the "cod-wars", where our single little coast guard boat with one gun (corked!) would sail out to meet British naval vessels and attempt to shoo their fishing boats and navy out of our newly expanded waters (as we expanded our mileage to about the same as the rest of the world already had theirs).
Iceland won these "wars" not by force, but by tenacity and by winning over the public opinion, not only of Iceland, but of most of the world. In part with a simple comic sketch which featured a little rowboat with an Icelandic flag and a man with a toy gun surrounded by several British naval ships with all their big guns pointed down at the little man in his little boat.

There's a point there. It's that in these cases we're talking about western countries with ideals of fair play. If the British navy had fired upon the only coast guard ship Iceland had, a tiny boat by comparison to the massive destroyers, which only had one gun that was never fired, never even loaded, was actually corked the entire time, then the UK would have come off as this violent bully and brute that had nothing better to do with it's munitions than lay waste to an anthill, and for what? For waters they already had no claim to and didn't want to stop fishing in.
_

Iceland "was" indeed taken over by Denmark once in the past, but this was done without bloodshed.
It also won back it's independence without bloodshed.
A group of Icelandic politicians went to Denmark to negotiate with the Danish on something or another and there was a moment in that negotiation that every Icelander knows. A moment when one man stood up and spoke "Við mótmælum allir!" (We all object!)
This line stands for the Icelandic "battle" for independence.
The people made it's will know via their proxy.
Iceland became independent once more.
_

Now, how do I believe that we'll "end" all war?

I do not believe that attacking the symptoms will do anyone any good.
None of this "no more guns" business will really help, nor will "no more taxes!"

I believe that what we need to do, as a species, is to decrease financial and social inequality, increase education and make it available to all of us, regardless of financial or sociological background.
We need to get any and all "religious" influence out of education and we need education to be broad and fluent, allowing people to learn, not just parrot.
We need to encourage and reward critical thinking and kindness, not make excuses for ignorance and cruelty.
We need to be just, and fair, not propagate hate, us v.s. them mentalities and revenge ethics.

I believe that when we've accomplished all this that it's then and only then that we can foresee the end of war.
Sadly, I doubt this can be accomplished in my lifetime, not even within a single country, even if it were the most progressive country in existence today, because we're human and we're too invested in our inequalities, arrogance and ignorance. We're too busy believing we're "right" to admit that we're wrong.

When the people being invaded simple stand there and don't fight the invaders can't justify their invasions.. Especially now with the computer age..

@ Zythyra, my source said there have been less than 300 years of peace in recorded history. As a species, we understand peace as well as aggression. Peace is fleeting, and war persists. @ Miniar, Iceland is the only member of NATO without a standing army of it's own. Iceland has also been in a bilateral defense agreement with the United States since 1951. This means Iceland has pledged to do whatever is necessary to protect the United States, and the United States has pledged to do whatever is necessary to protect Iceland. A mutually  beneficial arrangement providing safety for both nations. Hugs, Tracey

Kia Ora,

::) Waste of precious lives And Resources

Metta Zenda :)

Who remembers the WOPR?

Quote from: Julie Marie on November 21, 2011, 09:23:58 PM
Nothing fuels "defense" better than fear.  Fear, even when it's unfounded or irrational, is a powerful tool.

Countries have existed for centuries that have never gone to war and haven't had to hand over their possessions.  Other countries hate the US because the US sticks its nose in everyone's business and calls it defense.  What we do is no different than the neighborhood bully charging into your home just to make sure you aren't planning to attack him.

Peace is a choice, just like war.

I beg to differ. Twice with had to intervene in Europe to stop major wars (WWi and II). Korea ? ask the South Koreans -currently one of the strongest economies in the world- if American intevention was worthless. The point is not to analyze waht drives war but rather understand that war is the mother of all inventions. Even "peaceful" civilizations like the Buddhist do not create anything unless they are lock in conflict.

Jen61

Quote from: Tracey on November 22, 2011, 06:28:15 AM
@ Zythyra, my source said there have been less than 300 years of peace in recorded history. As a species, we understand peace as well as aggression. Peace is fleeting, and war persists.

Tracey,

Thanks. I'd heard it as 39 years, but either number is a tiny percentage in the whole of recorded human history.

Z

The point is not to analyze waht drives war but rather understand that war is the mother of all inventions. Even "peaceful" civilizations like the Buddhist do not create anything unless they are lock in conflict.

That tends not to be true.  Peace tends to prosperity and innovation because you have a full market to do the choosing.  War limits the market to just one buyer and the only issue is military necessity.   

Lots of people clamor to get our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, but our troops have been in Korea since the 1930s.

Quote from: tekla on November 23, 2011, 08:41:13 AM
The point is not to analyze waht drives war but rather understand that war is the mother of all inventions. Even "peaceful" civilizations like the Buddhist do not create anything unless they are lock in conflict.

That tends not to be true.  Peace tends to prosperity and innovation because you have a full market to do the choosing.  War limits the market to just one buyer and the only issue is military necessity.   

Ummh, I am surprised at UR post. Usually you are right, but on this one, you are wrong. All the mtalurgie developments in the ascient world were but fueled by war. In recent times:
1. Atomic Energy – Absurdly efficient energy source capable of powering (or obliterating ) a large city. Used widely throughout the world. WWII

2. Anesthesia – the use of Chloroform began in the Civil War to aid Battlefield Surgeons efforts to cleanly and humanely process the injured soldiers. Shortly thereafter the movement began to gain traction in the private sector, improving medical care by cleaner surgeries and fewer infections. US Civil War.

3. Computer – We live in a wired society. Computers are part of the fabric of our daily lives at work, in the car or at home. Originally conceived and designed during WWII as a code breaking aid and for targetting Naval guns.

4. Internet – Conceived and designed in the late 1970's during the height of the cold war as a defense against nuclear war (DARPA). The thought was that if vital government information could be stored in a virtual environment, it would be impossible to take out communications at one location. The effect of this advancement is obvious to anyone reading this. 

5. Satellite Technology – The "Space Race" fueled by the underlying Cold War gave rise to an invention that facilitated better, safer, and more meaningful intelligence gathering activities. Modern day commercial applications have expanded to include the advent of GPS, and of course cable television and wireless internet. Cold War

6. Penicillin – Discovered around the turn of the 20th century, this simple drug which came to prominence during WWII has saved Billions of lives from previously deadly bacterial infections. WWI and WWII

7. Rubber – As the Allied forces scrambled to produce the equipment that would facilitate victory against the Axis powers, a major breakthrough came with the invention of synthetic rubber. Prior to this rubber was harvested via "rubber trees" in the South Pacific and Latin/South America. The invention allowed commercial ventures to explode and grow the American economy to the world's leading economic power. The most obvious application? Automobile tires. WWII

8. Jet Engine – Aeronautic technologies were able to "take off" in WWII & the Korean War Conflict with the invention of higher octane, more efficient super fuels, stronger and lighter engines and advances in aerodynamic engineering. Howard Hughes, the filmmaker, billionaire industrialist and international playboy pioneered many technologies which ensured unrivaled American Air superiority to this very day. WWII & Korean Conflict

9. Submarine – Incredibly, while the notion of maritime submersible vehicles have been "floating" around since the early 1600's, the first rudimentary (yet viable) submarine was launched in 1775. American Revolutionary War


10. Pepto Bismol – Pink Bismuth may not mean much to most, but for those of us this summer who suffer with the occasional post-hot dog heartburn this is a lifesaver. Originally conceived during WWII, this product was introduced commercially directly after the war. And the rest is

Its a sad state of affairs when people see the good in wars.. Personally i would much rather see our people die from disease or a life of hard work or lack of knowledge than to live a life knowing we need to kill others to justify progress!  Is that really progress ? What about our spirits / souls ?  Will the future bring us to a sad state where we calculate that killing a certain group of people will reduce a certain disease? Sounds to me like hitlers ideology..

Quote from: Amazon D on November 23, 2011, 10:36:45 AM
Its a sad state of affairs when people see the good in wars.. Personally i would much rather see our people die from disease or a life of hard work or lack of knowledge than to live a life knowing we need to kill others to justify progress!  Is that really progress ? What about our spirits / souls ?  Will the future bring us to a sad state where we calculate that killing a certain group of people will reduce a certain disease? Sounds to me like hitlers ideology..

Actually, I think it's actually extremely human to see something good in something bad. We have a saying here that goes "Ekkert er svo með öllu illt að ekki boði nokkuð gott." ("Nothing is so entirely evil that it doesn't bring anything good.") and the ability to find hope, to find positive notes, to find a single flower in a field of despair is what human beings do, it's what keeps us alive.
And that's why depression is so crippling. Because it robs us of the talent to find any hope at all.

We do not "need" war to progress and any suggestion thereof is ridiculous, but it is true that a lot of discoveries have come from a place of violence but this violence is only one form of human competitiveness. Only way to utterly and completely remove violence is to utterly and completely remove human competitiveness and/or reason for competition. Here's the problem with it. In order to have no reason to compete we need to be indifferent and homogeneous to a point where progress becomes completely impossible. We have to become the last man from thus spoke Zarathustra.

Secondly, scientific and medical progress is progress even if it's born from cruelty. No, it doesn't justify the cruelty, but that doesn't change what it's brought us. The discoveries born of atrocities are still discoveries.

Not everyone believes in spirits/souls.

And the slippery slope argument (logical fallacy) along with Godwin's Law don't add anything to the discussion.

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

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

Not to mention the pillage of Europe between the 8th and 11th centuries !  :laugh:

"just jocking"

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 !  :laugh:

"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. ;)

Miniar, thanks for clarifying the politics a bit. We have people here in the US who disagree with the government, but they can't turn around and say the US isn't involved because they disagree. Hugs, Tracey

Phone's only accepting short posts today. Iceland has troops in Afghanistan right now. They are serving in unarmed positions, but their weapons are available if necessary.

"Eggs, rocks, dirt and anything else throwable" That's exactly how cavemen learned to wage war in the first place. You see, Miniar, Icelanders are no different than the rest of us. Hugs, Tracey

Quote from: Tracey on November 24, 2011, 08:29:18 AMMiniar, thanks for clarifying the politics a bit. We have people here in the US who disagree with the government, but they can't turn around and say the US isn't involved because they disagree. Hugs, Tracey

It's not a matter of "we're not involved" but a matter of "we don't support".
As in, a couple of lap-dogs say "Iceland supports your decision", the nation (not just a few people, the majority) says "dude, WE are Iceland, and we don't F-ing agree!"

Then there's a second difference.
Iceland doesn't have a military, at all.

Quote from: Tracey on November 24, 2011, 08:45:28 AM
Phone's only accepting short posts today. Iceland has troops in Afghanistan right now. They are serving in unarmed positions, but their weapons are available if necessary.

"Iceland" doesn't have troops to start with, let alone troops they've placed.
On behalf of "Iceland", a grand total of 5 human beings are working in Afganistan.
These individuals aren't "troops" by any stretch of the word.
Three office managers, a professor of gender studies and a substitute vice office manager.
The people that have gone to Afghanistan which have been sent from Iceland have been mostly pencil pushers but we've also sent, for example, fire fighters who's primary task was to help train local fire fighters and nurses who were tasked with providing a modicum of medical help to locals.

There are Icelandic laws regarding those who serve on behalf of Iceland in "peace-keeping" missions, for example, they are only allowed to carry arms for self defense and they're not allowed at all to be "politically active" in local politics as they aren't supposed to be trying to influence them, and the requirements to work on Iceland's behalf in these tasks as put up at the moment require you to have a university degree and they're specifically looking for work with experience working in emergencies and in humanitarian missions.

Now, it "is" true that there are more Icelanders in Afganistan that those five at the moment (bringing the total up to 12-15 individuals) and of these there are a couple you could call "troops" but even if they are Icelandic citizens and troops they aren't "Icelandic troops", they are there as a part of Norwegian presence.

Quote from: Tracey on November 24, 2011, 09:08:27 AM
"Eggs, rocks, dirt and anything else throwable" That's exactly how cavemen learned to wage war in the first place. You see, Miniar, Icelanders are no different than the rest of us. Hugs, Tracey

Never said we were, but I'd hardly suggest that a protest turned extremely angry when the nation's voice went ignored is equatable to stockpiling bombs. ;)

I believe we are using different terminology. I see Iceland as having a military, but not a combat equipped army. The military being the personnel trained in the combat skills that are currently in Afghanistan. Safe to say Iceland has no army but provides support to the NATO mission? Iceland, not you personally. Hugs, Tracey

Miniar, I mean no disrespect, but "even if they are Icelandic citizens and troops, they aren't Icelandic troops" Are you checking to see if I'm reading your posts? If not, are you able to say that with a straight face? I can't read that without laughing! Hugs, Tracey

God bless the Icelanders who are serving overseas, and I hope for their speedy and safe return. Hugs, Tracey

Quote from: Tracey on November 24, 2011, 07:19:18 PM
I believe we are using different terminology. I see Iceland as having a military, but not a combat equipped army. The military being the personnel trained in the combat skills that are currently in Afghanistan. Safe to say Iceland has no army but provides support to the NATO mission? Iceland, not you personally. Hugs, Tracey

The definition of the term military kind of needs for there to be an army.

Icelandic personell in Afganistan aren't seriously trained in combat skills in any way. They're instructed in the bare bones basics of how to handle a firearm if absolutely necessary and that's it. If that's all it takes to be "military" then I suppose our local police force are military?

Quote from: Tracey on November 24, 2011, 07:33:39 PM
Miniar, I mean no disrespect, but "even if they are Icelandic citizens and troops, they aren't Icelandic troops" Are you checking to see if I'm reading your posts? If not, are you able to say that with a straight face? I can't read that without laughing! Hugs, Tracey

No, I'm not checking to see if you're reading it, and yes, I can say it with a straight face.

I explained exactly how this works, but in case you missed it, if Norway sends troops, and a couple of the people they send  have Icelandic citizenship, that doesn't make them Icelandic troops as Iceland doesn't have troops. It makes them Norwegian troops which as indidividuals have Icelandic citizenship.
It's not that complicated.

I agree, it boils down to this: Julie Marie stated that nations have survived without a military. Michelle asked which nations. You seemed to infer Iceland had no military. I disagreed with that. If I misunderstood your meaning, I offer my sincere apology. Now I will ask everyone reading this to type "Iceland military" into their search engine. Hugs, Tracey

Quote from: Tracey on November 25, 2011, 09:19:02 AM
I agree, it boils down to this: Julie Marie stated that nations have survived without a military. Michelle asked which nations. You seemed to infer Iceland had no military. I disagreed with that. If I misunderstood your meaning, I offer my sincere apology. Now I will ask everyone reading this to type "Iceland military" into their search engine. Hugs, Tracey

I'd suggest you'd google "friðargæslan" and read about it's stated purpose, training, and so on, but due to the simple fact that it is in Icelandic I'd figure you'd have a bit of a problem with that.

Specifically; "Friðargæsluliðar sem starfa á vegum Íslensku friðargæslunnar eru borgaralegir sérfræðingar á ýmsum sviðum. Enginn þeirra ber vopn." is of importance.
It states that Icelandic "peace keepers" who operate for the Icelandic government are civilian experts in various fields. None of them carry arms.
And; "Framlag Íslands til friðargæslu í heiminum verður fyrst og fremst á sviði sáttaumleitana, uppbyggingar borgaralegra stofnana, jafnréttis- og mannúðarmála." ("The contribution of Iceland to keeping piece in the world will primarilly be in the field of neogiation, the building of civillian institutes, equality and humanitarian issues.")

I don't like the "agree to disagree" thing, how about we agree that we both think we're pretty right on this one? If I'm ever in Iceland, dinner is on me at your favorite restaurant! Hugs, Tracey

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Iceland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Iceland)   Not exactly free of any and all military. But I get your point.

BTW, Miniar. I was going to ask about the British/American WWII "occupation". In the modern world it would seem that Iceland probably gets the most bang for the buck out of NATO.

I read that wikipedia article and when I got to the part where they refered to Lárus as "colonel" I actually cracked up.
In 2004 the debate ran wild through my country. Military titles and military gear were deemed inappropriate, even if the titles and gear were both "borrowed". (The Icelandic gov. agency known as Friðargæslan did not assign these titles itself nor get these titles from the gov. to assign but the titles became assimilated due to their work with military groups of other countries.)
Which is why they were all removed.

Icelandic "forces" in NATO operations wear civilian garb, do not carry arms (though they are allowed to pick up arms for sake of self defense if the proverbial ->-bleeped-<- hits the fan), and are not, in any way, being sent to take part in any combat what so ever.

By the by, I'm not just pulling out these statements, I'm digging through government documents, news, etc, in Icelandic to make sure I'm not being wrong, cause that's how I work.

Michelle, thanks for taking the time to look up the facts, and for posting the link. Hugs, Tracey

Quote from: Tracey on November 26, 2011, 08:04:27 AMMichelle, thanks for taking the time to look up the facts, and for posting the link. Hugs, Tracey

See, this post right there seems a little bit snipe-y because I've been looking up the facts since the discussion started.
Only difference between my facts and yours being that I get my facts on Iceland from Iceland, whereas you get yours from English translations. I find it a little bit interesting that you're convinced that your 3rd hand facts are more reliable than, you know, reading the actual legislation itself.

I have been respectful all along, that wasn't snipey, it was exactly word for word what it looked like, a thanks to Michelle. What I find snipey is you dismissing the available information with a wave of your hand. Bury your head in the sand if you want, but facts are facts. Hugs, Tracey

Quote from: Tracey on November 27, 2011, 10:49:19 AM
I have been respectful all along, that wasn't snipey, it was exactly word for word what it looked like, a thanks to Michelle. What I find snipey is you dismissing the available information with a wave of your hand. Bury your head in the sand if you want, but facts are facts. Hugs, Tracey

Sorry Tracey, but it seems you on err. See below info on Iceland from the CIA worldbook

Military branches:
no regular military forces; Icelandic National Police (2008)

Military expenditures:

0% of GDP (2005 est.)

Iceland has no standing military force; under a 1951 bilateral agreement - still valid - its defense was provided by the US-manned Icelandic Defense Force (IDF) headquartered at Keflavik; however, all US military forces in Iceland were withdrawn as of October 2006; although wartime defense of Iceland remains a NATO commitment, in April 2007, Iceland and Norway signed a bilateral agreement providing for Norwegian aerial surveillance and defense of Icelandic airspace (2008)

Thank you for posting that, Jen, I had not seen that information. So now I have two sources to consider, which seem to conflict with each other. Your information about no standing army was never in disagreement. I appreciate you joining in to help resolve this, hugs, Tracey

I just tried to take a look at that, but my dumbphone can't navigate to the content.

One thing, Jen, my numbers said Icelands military expenditures were 0.4% GDP and your numbers said 0% My guess is it costs closer to 0.4% than 0% to run that Coast Guard. Does your source include that under a seperate category, like defense? Hugs, Tracey

Quote from: Tracey on November 27, 2011, 10:49:19 AMBury your head in the sand if you want, but facts are facts.

Again, this suggests that the facts available to me, an Icelander, in the form of Icelandic law, Icelandic regulation, etc, from a gov. that doesn't practice a lot of secrecy at all, are "not facts", whereas the translated, paraphrased, third hand information you have is "the facts".

Been reading this out of mild interest, and I do hope it doesn't keep on this snarky trajectory. That said, I do think you're coming across as a bit snipey and dismissive, Tracey. I'm not trying to be confrontational here and I hope you don't take offence before reading through this post, but look at it from this point of view: Miniar is from Iceland, speaks the language, knows the place intimately and is looking up information for you,  yet you don't appear to give any creedence to what they are saying about Icelands 'military', because it disagrees with your position. Everything that Miniar has said you debate and disagree with, yet when Michelle (who I don't think is from Iceland - sorry if I'm wrong on this) posts up a link, with debatable translations, from Wiki of all places ( it's not exactly a 100% reliable resource after all) that backs your belief you immediatly treat it as fact.

You could just as well have come right out and said 'Hey, Miniar, since I don't agree with what you're saying, I've decided you don't know s*** about your own country on this, k?'.... That's a little snipey.

As for the 'Icelandic troops but not Icelandic troops' thing, it's not that complicated - if someone, to use different countries as an example, with British citizenship joined the U.S armed forces, got trained up, assigned to a unit and then shipped out somewhere, they would be a U.S soldier on duty in the U.S military, not an example of a British military deployed presence. You appear to believe otherwise?

Here are a few more links on topic for you to look at though:
http://www.nationmaster.com/red/country/ic-iceland/mil-military&all=1 (http://www.nationmaster.com/red/country/ic-iceland/mil-military&all=1)
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3396.htm (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3396.htm)
http://www.theodora.com/wfbcurrent/iceland/iceland_military.html (http://www.theodora.com/wfbcurrent/iceland/iceland_military.html)

ahh, what the hey, I'll throw in a wiki article too :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO)     (scroll down to the expenditures and strength table)

So yes, Iceland has no military. According to everything I've found, the closest it had to a military was the IDF (Icelandic Defence Force) which was established in 2008, and abolished in 2011. In that two and a bit year period is the closest thing Iceland has had to a formal military structure for anything - thats far more than just a lack of a standing army - and the country has been around for a lot longer than that, and didn't go 'poof' in January, so in this case Julie Marie seems to have been spot on however much you disagree.

If more than one person tells you you're acting like an ass, then you're acting like an ass. I'm sorry, everyone, I've been acting like an ass. Pixiegirl, thank you for posting the information and links. My source was wiki, and I don't have local knowledge of Iceland. However, the first link showed mostly pre 9/11 numbers, not sure how that affects things, NATO ramped up after that as you know...

phones acting stupid, give me time to finish...

The information points to Iceland participating in NATO exercises on an ongoing basis, up to and including this year. I believe we're right back to terminology. Iceland has no military, but weilds the full force of NATO. Iceland has no standing army, but is militarily heavily involved with its NATO partners, by obligation. None of this is meant to offend anyone. Hugs, Tracey

I know wiki isn't your preferred source, but the wiki Coast guard section lists Icelands Coast Guard as a mainly law enforcement agency which also conducts military operations. Just saying. Hugs, Tracey

Just blow up america ;D

Quote from: fionabell on November 29, 2011, 04:17:15 AM
Just blow up america ;D

I guess your goverment disagree with you. They have ask the U.S. Marine Corp to send some of their tought hombres to go and protect your "sheilas."  Blow that !

Nasa said, "We (the people of earth)  can't handle the truth" because of religion = by Richard C Hoagland = Nasa said, "We can't handle the truth" by Richard C Hoagland (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyvAh621XOE&feature=related#)

The initial intent of this thread wasn't to determine military strength or alliances, but to talk about ways to not use those things. As the people of this planet, we do an overall lousy job of coexisting with one another. Einstein said "I know not with what weapons WWIII will be fought, but WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones." I take two messages from this statement. One, he was sure we would all but eliminate ourselves, and two, that when the dust settled we would go right back at it again. Hugs, Tracey

Laura, as soon as I read your post a light bulb came on over my head and I remembered VHEMT, (pronounced vehement) They might have the anti-war solution! Hugs, Tracey

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zztaj2AFiy8&feature=player_embedded# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zztaj2AFiy8&feature=player_embedded#)!

Breaking News ....Oath Keepers and National Guard Unit refuse to fire on America Citizens


http://www.saveamericafoundation.com/2011/12/08/breaking-news-oath-keepers-and-national-guard-unit-refuse-to-fire-on-america-citizens/ (http://www.saveamericafoundation.com/2011/12/08/breaking-news-oath-keepers-and-national-guard-unit-refuse-to-fire-on-america-citizens/)

Quote from: Tracey on November 11, 2011, 11:27:33 AM
What do you do to help stop wars? It seems there are few answers. This conversation started in "Roll call" and I thought it needed a home of its own.

let's go back to the initial challenging question !

I guess I should have asked Tracey what war is she talking about ?

Quote from: Amazon D on December 10, 2011, 06:17:28 AM
Breaking News ....Oath Keepers and National Guard Unit refuse to fire on America Citizens


http://www.saveamericafoundation.com/2011/12/08/breaking-news-oath-keepers-and-national-guard-unit-refuse-to-fire-on-america-citizens/ (http://www.saveamericafoundation.com/2011/12/08/breaking-news-oath-keepers-and-national-guard-unit-refuse-to-fire-on-america-citizens/)

That story sounds like fantasy. No military unit is going to run an official poll asking "who will open fire on american citizens."  For one, every soldier understands that they will be accountable for following an illegal order.  You would be very hard pressed to find ANY US soldier that would open fire on unarmed civilians. On the other hand, if civilians are armed and engaging in terroistic acts then most soldiers would have no problem using lethal force.

I was a active duty infantry soldier when the LA riots broke out and our unit at Ft. Lewis was on alert to bring back order if Martial Law was declared. Our commander held a formation and reminded everyone that if deployed, we would be facing the prospect of firing on American Citizens. I simply cant imagine ANY officer or NCO (non-comissioned officer) expecting a soldier to fire on American citizens or ANY civilian that was not a terroristic threat and to say that you would not follow an illegal order is hardly a punnishable offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

I will add though,that as a soldier I could have cared less if the armed threat came from a civilian, US citizen, or a jihadist. I would have performed my duty in a professional manner as I was trained to do. I would venture to guess that most professional soldiers (not including national guard or reserves) would follow any LEGAL orders given, as they should.

Quote from: JessicaH on December 10, 2011, 09:55:00 AM
. You would be very hard pressed to find ANY US soldier that would open fire on unarmed civilians. On the other hand, if civilians are armed and engaging in terroistic acts then most soldiers would have no problem using lethal force.

Kia Ora Jessica,

::) So what happened at Kent State Uni ?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings) Are the National guards members different to other American soldiers ?

::) I'm not familiar with the differences between the National Guard and other US military troops...So I might be jumping to conclusions, getting the wrong end of the stick....   

Metta Zenda :)

@ Jen61, I have a confession to make. I'm not the anti-war person, I started the thread because Emoxon started this conversation in my veterans thread "Roll Call" and I didn't think that was the right direction for the thread. Hugs, Tracey

The American Army, going back to the Administration of George Washington has NEVER refused an order to fire on civilians.  NEVER.  Not in the Whiskey Rebellion, or the Civil War, or urban/campus riots, or - and perhaps the most glaring example - on their own (once) fellow soldiers.  (See: Bonus Army march on Washington, "Occupy" is not a new concept.)  The solider that carried out the orders that included shooting veterans of the First World War?  Douglas MacArthur.  The carvery charge was led by George Patton.

Quote from: Zenda on December 10, 2011, 01:09:29 PM
Kia Ora Jessica,

::) So what happened at Kent State Uni ?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings) Are the National guards members different to other American soldiers ?

::) I'm not familiar with the differences between the National Guard and other US military troops...So I might be jumping to conclusions, getting the wrong end of the stick....   

Metta Zenda :)

Yes i would think they would be sick puppies to shoot a citizen for protesting ..  but there are sickos in the military.. i know i was in the USMC in 73 ..

Quote from: Amazon D on December 10, 2011, 03:58:53 PM
Yes i would think they would be sick puppies to shoot a citizen for protesting ..  but there are sickos in the military.. i know i was in the USMC in 73 ..

I was attached to a USMC batallion for 3 years, kind of recently, and I can tell you that the USA Armed Forces of today are not those of 73. Things have change, a lot. Yet, they are what they are but they operate under tilte 14, they cannot operate in the USA. Police and the national guard on the other hand operate under title 10. Big difference.

Big difference.
Increasingly more of a technicality.

Quote from: tekla on December 10, 2011, 07:03:23 PM
Big difference.
Increasingly more of a technicality.

Is this the best you can do, I am dissapointed !

If you've been paying attention (which you obviously have not been) you would see that Congress is, right now, trying to rewrite some of those laws.  Secondly, the increasing militarization of the police has brought about the same reality through the back door.  When the ATF can 'borrow' tanks from the Army (as they did in Waco, and in Montana), the law you quote does seem to be not much of a barrier.

Quote from: tekla on December 10, 2011, 09:47:51 PM
If you've been paying attention (which you obviously have not been) you would see that Congress is, right now, trying to rewrite some of those laws.  Secondly, the increasing militarization of the police has brought about the same reality through the back door.  When the ATF can 'borrow' tanks from the Army (as they did in Waco, and in Montana), the law you quote does seem to be not much of a barrier.

How do you know what I have been paying attention or not ? Do not tell me, you are a psychic now !

But for the sake of an argument please enlight me as I am not aware of congress effort to change the military from operating under title 14 to tile 10

National Defense Authorization Act provision S. 1867, Sections 1031 and 1032.

Quote from: tekla on December 11, 2011, 09:47:15 AM
National Defense Authorization Act provision S. 1867, Sections 1031 and 1032.

NDA is  the "Patriot Act," it did not and would not change the title under which the USA Armed forces operate.

In summary: Patriot Act gives authority to USA agencies operating under title 10, FBI, Homeland Defense, Cost Guard,  the National Guard, and police agencies; yo arrest anybody in the USA and detain them indefinitely if they are suspected terrorist. I also allows the USA military to arrest enemy combatants and suspected terrorist overseas. IT DOES NOT HOWEVER ALLOW THE USA MILITARY TO OPERATE IN THE USA.

What Congress is trying to do with the Patriot Act is two fold: a) make it permanent, and b) place some modifications to it to stop potential abuses.

You see my dear Tekla it is my job to never take my eyes from the eight ball