Thoughts? Should they be kicked to the curb?
Printable View
Thoughts? Should they be kicked to the curb?
What has Iceland done to earn Breitbart's fury?
Did they make warning noises about Russia?
They seem to have rescinded their astute and principled criticism of pineapples on pizza. So... yes.
What!?
Why on Earth should they? They are of major strategic importance.
They made one of those videos mocking Trump, but lots of European countries have done that, so I don't know why Iceland would be singled out for a Lewk Thread™.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Lewk, what has Iceland done to annoy Steve Bannon recently?
I'll throw copyright stance and military funding into the pot too. I've seen complaints for both from circles lewk would be drawn to.
It's not surprising. It's a small country that Lewk knows nothing about and it doesn't maintain a standing army. Lewk views Iceland the same way he views eg. the EPA.
Next Lewk will call for giving Gibraltar and the Bosphorous Strait to Russia because Breitbart's Russian plant(s) said it would be a good idea.
Well it wasn't nice of then to beat the Netherlands during the European cup qualifiers but kicking them out of nato seems extreme.
I just wanted to say, Estonia and Latvia can go and fuck themselves as well.
Except that Iceland is not committed to spending 2% of GDP on NATO funding. Rather uniquely as a small, strategically important island that has no standing army but has been used as a military base for NATO . . . Iceland brings something completely different to the alliance than simply spending 2% of a fisherman's wages on a pathetic and meaningless military.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Iceland are founding members of NATO and it was founded with the agreement that Iceland would be under no obligation to form a standing army. Anyone looking at Iceland and wondering why they're not spending is just an ignoramus pure and simple.
PS citizens from Iceland who want to serve in a standing army do so as part of Norway's army.
Absolutely. Thats why I included it. Seems to be right up Lewk's alley.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
While I agree in principle (and certainly that is the historic reality with Iceland), I do think that the underlying logic is not as simple as you present. Iceland obviously should not try to duplicate a full military given their very small population base (~350k IIRC) and relatively small budget (~$4 or 5 billion?), but there's no reason they couldn't develop niche capabilities to contribute to the alliance. To an extent, they already do so - they have coastal patrol boats and some air defense systems, and they also have specific individuals with specific skill sets (e.g. EOD) who have been deployed on NATO deployments even they are not official servicemembers of the nonexistent Icelandic army.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Iceland's opt out has more to do with the reality of Iceland when the alliance was first conceived, not the reality today (which has a GDP of some $63k per capita, largely based on high energy refining of silicon/aluminum and industrial scale fishing). Spending 2% of GDP to contribute to a niche ability is not an unreasonable ask nowadays. It would work out to around $300 million I believe, which is enough to do something useful. I think they currently spend about 10% of that amount on their coast guard et al.
I have no interest in making a big issue out of this, of course - Iceland's role in the alliance is indeed unique from a historical perspective, and $300 million more or less in alliance defense spending isn't going to affect anything. Our political capital is much better spent on getting the big boys in NATO to (a) spend more, and (b) stop wasting money on stupid stuff that doesn't enhance their capabilities. But viewed from an objective current perspective, rather than the one from the early 1950s, suggests that it's not an unreasonable thought for Iceland to meet the 2% level in some way. Not to say that whatever ridiculous corner of the internet this current 'issue' of Lewk's came from appreciates this.
(As an interesting aside, to emphasize the distinction between 1950 and 2017 Iceland - during the 1950s and continuing in a smaller degree into the 1960s, there was a secret ban on black US servicemembers from being stationed in Iceland as part of the Icelandic Defense Force. Different, indeed.)
Hey Lewk, would you mind providing a link to whatever discussion it was that inspired this thread? Some background/context?
I was gonna ask the same, but he has appeared to have forgotten this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Was on youtube and Iceland made the list of 10 weakest armies.
:haha:
(you're such a predictable joke)
No Shit Sherlock, it's an island of ~300k fishermen. The entire country has less population than Tampa in Florida.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
But Iceland wasn't a founding member of NATO for its non-existent military.
oh christQuote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
:(
It's not fair. We're paying so much money into NATO and Andorra is just getting a free ride, defended by us without having to spend a dime!
Especially with the rising tensions in Agrabah. How is NATO going to bomb Agrabah if Andorra doesn't provide missiles?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Agrabah isn't real, it's fiction. :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Andorra is real. It's a sovereign state in the Pyrenees.
I know that! I'm currently [co-incidentally] watching Aladdin with my daughter but I was referring to this shocking piece of ignorance by [actually more than just] Trump supporters: http://www.snopes.com/2015/12/18/agrabah-aladdin-republican-poll/
I suspect a Venn Diagram of "bomb Agrabah" and "kick out Iceland" and other lunacy will find a lot of intersection.
Pay your 2% or pay 2% worth of your GDP to countries that do. Seems fair.
Or you do something else as agreed since you helped found the organisation. Seems fair.
Except the founding NATO treaty doesn't requires this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
http://carnegieeurope.eu/2015/09/02/...rope-pub-61139Quote:
Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level will:
halt any decline in defence expenditure;
aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows;
aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade with a view to meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO’s capability shortfalls.
...the 2 percent pledge is not a legally binding commitment by NATO’s member states...
Just like the US promised to move towards nuclear disarmament in the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty.
You are arguing it from a legalistic definition. I'm talking about foreign policy here. America can (though I doubt it should) simply say "Ya know NATO either you get your shit together and start making Iceland free loaders pay up or we'll leave." NATO is not an eternal agreement. America spent billions in the Cold War and Europe reaped the benefit. Why should we continue to pay for their defense? I'd like to be clear here - I think NATO is absolutely a great thing for America to be a part of however I don't think we should have pacifist freeloaders along for the ride. If they want mutual protection they should pay up.
Yeah, it's not like America reaped the benefit of winning the Cold War. :bored:
Incidentally, what do you want the Europeans to arm for? I thought Russia was a friend.
Russia isn't our friend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I don't necessarily want Iceland to arm itself, it certainly wouldn't matter in any sort of war. I want them to pay up to nations who have been keeping the world safe. They can arm up to 2% GDP or they can pay 2% GDP. I suspect it will be easier to pay up. Alternative if they don't want to continue to free load they can depart from the alliance.
That is not how alliances work since ancient Athens and imperial China.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Iceland is in NATO and we aren't concerned about their lack of spending because what we really, REALLY want from them is their location.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Indeed, the GIUK gap is a fantastic strategic bottleneck for Russian naval operations in the Atlantic. Deployment of SOSUS was a big deal in the Cold War, and continues to be a central plank of NATO defense thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Exactly, they're not freeloading they're providing a very useful strategic location.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy