Funny you mention 1,000 years… {ref: Revelation ch.20}
OK, resident Icelander checking in 
Iceland as a nation is not going bankrupt, though some companies might. We have food in the stores, medicines in the pharmacies, gas in the tanks and at least enough booze to give me a serious headache today.
The Icelandic Navy in the 1960.s consisted of two (2) coast-guard vessels which had enough killing power to wack a fearsome polar-beer. Not much else. The main weapon against the Brits was “scissors” which cut of the draglines of the fishing vessels and then of course they could ram them. Which, unfortunately enough, did happen.
So no, Iceland would not have had much of a chance against the Royal Navy. Iceland did however have some serious pull back in those days with Washington, as we are in one corner of the GIUK*-gap which was used to prevent the evil Commies from getting into the Atlantic with their subs. This pull, was what gave Iceland victory in the Cod-Wars (so you guys want that base here, or should we be talking to the Russkies?)
The pull-out of the US Base (as mentioned in a previous reply) did not affect the Icelandic Economy in any real way. The Base was much to small to have that big off an effect.
Greenland, Iceland, United Kingdom
At the moment. Nobody knows what REALLY happened. Lots of rumors going about and lots of different explanations from the different sides. And the sides aren’t even Iceland vs. The UK - we have loads of in-faction fighting here on the island too. The Government, the Opposition, the Bankers, the Company-owners, the Unions… You name it. Everyone’s looking to come out on top of this. And everybody’s failing miserably at the moment.
Which is why I’m leaving.
Don’t be counting your sighs of relief before they hatch - we’ve only seen the tip of the economic iceberg of woes yet.
Look, I’d LIKE to believe Iceland isn’t a terrorist state … but how else are we to account for Bjork?
Now this is where we have to define the difference between a Terrorist State and a Viking State. The differences are subtle but they do exist
A Terrorist State for example: seldom has one of their main enemies as main recipient of their legal export goods (fish to the UK).
I wonder if Bjork was put on the no-fly list.
Considering she lives in London, I don’t think that would matter that much.
The UK government acted to protect British money invested in Icelandic banks. The comparison with a private individual convicted of drug smuggling and pre-emptive action against a bank ready to swallow billions of pounds of public and private money is ridiculous.
One can only hope that the New Power of Goodness would include Ninja’s.
War films would again, be awesome.
Ninja’s vs Vikings. Discuss.
So the government has seized Bjork?
If we want to go for the Conspiracy crowd, sure
She’s married to an Englishman (some director) and has been living in the UK for quite a few years now. They even have a little daughter. Her son from a previous relationship lives in her grand house in Reykjavik.
I confess on reflection the analogy wasn’t a good one. But the point remains the same–the rule of law requires that you don’t trump charges you know to be false even if desirable consequences might result from this. That is implicit in the notion of rights.
Another crush smashed by the harsh voice of reality. When, O when, will this cruelty end?
I’m sure that the pirates will be most interested in this.
Wanna trade houses? Nashiitashii and I are kind of sick of the US.
What charges?
The law allows for the freezing of assets to protect UK citizens and their property. The actions of the Icelandic government were a direct threat to both private and public depositors, and the UK government had no option but to freeze those assets to prevent them disappearing.
At least wait till after the election… 
We’re not hopping any planes yet. one more day…one more day…
No jobs, bad weather, horrible currency - if you want it, you got it (though I’m renting a 2 b/r with another guy, so you might not want it)
That’s the thing. Darling said the Icelandic government had said that, while the Icelandic government claims to have said no such thing. In any way, those demands from the British government, which included several billion moneys* “right now” led to the fall of Kaupthing, since there was no way to get that much that fast.
It’s a mess. And I hope someone will write a darn good book about it in a few years, sorting the shit out.
*I don’t remember the actual amount.
Well, I can’t claim to be an expert on international law, but from the NYTimes:
This seems like a case of using a law to seize assets based on the deliberately false premise that Iceland violated the UK’s antiterrorism statutes. If someone can explain to me (a) how Iceland violated said statutes or (b) how it could be legitimate to write a law so broadly that Iceland’s actions could count as terrorism, then I will gladly concede the point. (And no, I’m not being a smartass; I really will concede the point.)