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the US-manned Icelandic Defense Force (IDF) headquartered at Keflavik; however, all US military forces in Iceland were withdrawn as of October 2006; although wartime defense of Iceland remains a NATO commitment, in April 2007, Iceland and Norway signed a bilateral agreement providing for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.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3396.htm
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     (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

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

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

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#!

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/

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.