:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Protection so they won't be invaded by a country like USA, Russia, China or whatever other country think they can just walk in ?

nevertheless, it's nowhere near the cost of maintaining an army and you prolly know that eh.

if there were no value to the treaty, i'm sure iceland/u.s. would have nullified it at some point over the last 60+ years.

no, iceland gets a sweet deal not having to maintain an army at the u.s. expense.

iceland, 150th on the list of military budgets by country, out of 155 countries.

sweet deal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_expenditures

who would want to have Iceland and for what?


At NATO expense - where they pay for. The NATO is more than just the US.

and they have a population of 320,000 people (175th in the world) - how big do you suggest would be the Icelandic army?

like 50 guys and a rowing boat?

or do you want to put 50% of their population in the army to even have the slightest chance when the US or Russia wants to invade them?

just let those poor people alone - they are punished enough by living there (and Bjork)

:winkwink:

well, apparently you germans wanted iceland during the big war, so much so that the brits INVADED iceland to take control and handle all the germans there.




relax. i didn't make the policy, i'm sure the u.s. strategy for defending iceland is appropriate to the value iceland gives back to the world. nevertheless, it's there and we foot the bill.

p.s. i noticed jamaica spends more on military than iceland.

if by "we" you also mean me and the rest of the NATO countries I agree :winkwink:

sorry, didn't mean it that way, germany the country. germany had ties to iceland in ww2 such that it concerned the allies enough to invade and take control.

proving that iceland has value and consequently, something that needs protecting.

the u.s. provides that protection.

but thats not what i meant with "we" or "me"...

The NATO provides protection, Iceland pays into the NATO budget.

Just like any NATO country provides help when any other NATO country is attacked.

And the NATO is more than just the US (the general secretary is a danish dude for example)

I believe they do have some oil in their territory. Iceland belonged to Denmark, Norway at some points in history. I'm sure they still have some affairs with this country which are beneficial to european economy.

i don't need an education on nato.

i can assure you the white helmets will not be defending a a nation anytime soon and you know that too. if iceland were attacked, nato would be sending emails and issuing press releases.

funky - Germany just sent missiles and personnel to Turkey in case of any new attacks from Syria ;)

and btw - i dont want to educate anyone - but you kept repeating something that is simply not true - at least not after 2006

it's your choice, you can continue thinking nato is a viable defense strategy going into to 21st century or not. but there's a lot out there showing otherwise.

not sure what you are referring to that i am incorrect about after 2006? that the u.s. covers iceland's ass?

that u.s. covers 70% of the nato defense budget and even more of its strategy?

that austerity measures are wiping out the puny defenses european countries have to begin with due to them letting the u.s. cover that?

Obama administration officials warned last year that European members of NATO could no longer expect the United States to shoulder a disproportionate burden of maintaining the 28-member alliance, the bedrock of trans-Atlantic security and diplomacy since the end of World War II. The United States accounts for 75 percent of all NATO defense spending, up from 50 percent during the Cold War.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2...ropean-members

Norwegian Defense Minister Espen
Barth Eide has claimed that “exercises
have shown that NATO’s ability to conduct
conventional military operations has
markedly declined. […] Not only is NATO’s
ability to defend its member states
questionable, it might actually deteriorate
further as financial pressures in Europe and
the US force cuts in military spending”.4
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/res...odonnell%20pdf

Well if nobody else wants it, I'll gladly take it.

oh jeeez... i didnt want to go all political over this - just stating a fact :upsidedow

actually i am not interested in defense strategies, i chose to wipe asses instead of carrying a gun. i despise military.

but i think that 95% of all worldwide military is useless anyways against a few people with nothing to lose and a bag of explosives

what fact did you state?