Belgium gives in. - Page 2

Oerdin · June 23, 2003, 22:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Maniac
Would you like it if some country meddled with your internal affairs?

It was hardly just an internal matter. The whole point of the law was the Belgian government was making everyone elses internal matters their matter so it is a bit disengenious to try to play that card now.

Maniac · June 24, 2003, 08:58

Quote:

The whole point of the law was the Belgian government was making everyone elses internal matters their matter

Well that was exactly one of the reasons I didn't like the genocide law. So just as I think Belgium shouldn't meddle with other countries' internal affairs, so I think Belgium's internal affairs shouldn't be meddled with, even if it is to make sure Belgium can no longer meddle in someone else's internal affairs.

DinoDoc · June 24, 2003, 09:25

You're a confusing person.

TCO · June 24, 2003, 10:16

Quote:

Originally posted by August Borms

It was continued (though maybe not completely because Belgium became neutral in 1936, plus they skipped the Ardennes because it was thought of as a "natural fortress"

)

why did they become neutral in 1936? And why did they dicide to stop their protection because of neutrality?

alva · June 24, 2003, 11:08

Quote:

why did they become neutral in 1936?

IIRC it some something to do with our king being German.

Maniac · June 24, 2003, 11:47

Quote:

You're a confusing person.

Thanks for the compliment!

Quote:

IIRC it some something to do with our king being German.

Also because France and Great Britain seemed unwilling or unable to form a front against Germany.

KrazyHorse · June 24, 2003, 11:53

Quote:

Originally posted by St Leo
Are you American, Lorizael? I am pretty sure that the Belgium tirade only appears in the American edition of the third book. I, personally, have the British edition which lacks it.

I think I might have the British edition as well. Where does said tirade appear in the third book?

KrazyHorse · June 24, 2003, 11:57

Quote:

Originally posted by August Borms

It was continued (though maybe not completely because Belgium became neutral in 1936, plus they skipped the Ardennes because it was thought of as a "natural fortress"

)

I thought Belgium was neutral from the end of Napoleonic wars on. Did they cease being neutral after end of WWI and then reclaim neutrality in 1936?

TCO · June 24, 2003, 12:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Maniac

Thanks for the compliment!

Also because France and Great Britain seemed unwilling or unable to form a front against Germany.

Please expand. What did they expect the neutrality to do for them?

Lorizael · June 24, 2003, 12:26

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

I think I might have the British edition as well. Where does said tirade appear in the third book?

When they're at the cocktail party in the sky.

HolyWarrior · June 25, 2003, 01:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Maniac
We don't threaten to demand the move of the UN out of New York if you don't comply with our whining.

Anytime you want to move the UN out of the US and vice versa is fine with me.

Panag · June 25, 2003, 07:20

hi ,

héhéh

actually there has not changed a thing , when a smart person makes a complaint , or asks a belgian or luxembourg based lawyer to file a new one based on the ruling of the Sharon trial , its back to square one , .......

have a nice day

HershOstropoler · June 25, 2003, 07:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin

It was hardly just an internal matter. The whole point of the law was the Belgian government was making everyone elses internal matters their matter so it is a bit disengenious to try to play that card now.

Au contraire. There is a little thing called universal jurisdiction for genocide and a couple other things.

The only area where Belgium claimed jurisdiction in contradiction to international law concerned functional immunity.

The remaining problem, as far as I understand it, is based on prosecution a) not requiring residence or presence and b) being possible to be, although indirectly through a lawsuit, initiated by private parties.

Is there an expert in Belgian penal law here to discuss the issue on the facts rather than some silly huffpuff jingoistic drivel?

Oh well, I thought so....

Panag · June 25, 2003, 09:27

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler

Au contraire. There is a little thing called universal jurisdiction for genocide and a couple other things.

The only area where Belgium claimed jurisdiction in contradiction to international law concerned functional immunity.

The remaining problem, as far as I understand it, is based on prosecution a) not requiring residence or presence and b) being possible to be, although indirectly through a lawsuit, initiated by private parties.

Is there an expert in Belgian penal law here to discuss the issue on the facts rather than some silly huffpuff jingoistic drivel?

Oh well, I thought so....

hi ,

yep , ....

what you need to know , .....

have a nice day

DinoDoc · June 25, 2003, 10:02

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Au contraire. There is a little thing called universal jurisdiction for genocide and a couple other things.

Out of curiosity what is the basis of the Congo's claim against France?

Quote:

Is there an expert in Belgian penal law here to discuss the issue on the facts rather than some silly huffpuff jingoistic drivel?

Why should penal law enter into it when foreign relations was much more important to the law being changed?

Bereta_Eder · June 25, 2003, 10:31

Is there an expert in Belgian penal law here to discuss the issue on the facts rather than some silly huffpuff jingoistic drivel?

I think DD just answered that question.

KrazyHorse · June 25, 2003, 22:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Lorizael

When they're at the cocktail party in the sky.

The award I remember is for most gratuitous use of the word "****" in a serious film. Don't remember any Belgian stuff...

Lorizael · June 25, 2003, 22:40

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

The award I remember is for most gratuitous use of the word "****" in a serious film. Don't remember any Belgian stuff...

How very odd... why would that not be in one version...

August Borms · June 26, 2003, 00:00

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

I thought Belgium was neutral from the end of Napoleonic wars on. Did they cease being neutral after end of WWI and then reclaim neutrality in 1936?

Yeah, we had some kind of alliance with the French (which IIRC is also the reason why the Maginot line wasn't continued along the French-Belgian border)

August Borms · June 26, 2003, 00:01

Quote:

Originally posted by GP

Please expand. What did they expect the neutrality to do for them?

To appease the Germans, I guess...

MichaeltheGreat · June 26, 2003, 01:16

The real irony is that the US in many cases assumes jurisdiction over actions by foreigners committed outside the US.

Manuel Noriega is one simple example.

US parties (and any non-US party which can demonstrate it has standing to sue under US law) can sue non-citizens in US Federal courts for torts allegedly committed outside the US by foreign nationals or foreign governments.

In Afghanistan and Iraq, the US routinely treats individuals under US military law, whether or not they're actually subject to military jurisdiction under the UCMJ.

It's funny how we ***** and cry when someone else does it, though.

Sikander · June 26, 2003, 02:50

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The real irony is that the US in many cases assumes jurisdiction over actions by foreigners committed outside the US.

Manuel Noriega is one simple example.

US parties (and any non-US party which can demonstrate it has standing to sue under US law) can sue non-citizens in US Federal courts for torts allegedly committed outside the US by foreign nationals or foreign governments.

In Afghanistan and Iraq, the US routinely treats individuals under US military law, whether or not they're actually subject to military jurisdiction under the UCMJ.

It's funny how we ***** and cry when someone else does it, though.

I certainly have no objections to puting our own house in order. It does seem that we've done a better job of keeping our courts from being used by every nutter with a desire to destroy the nation state though.

TCO · June 26, 2003, 09:13

Quote:

Originally posted by August Borms

To appease the Germans, I guess...

Not a very effective strategy. Maybe they should have continued the Maginot line on their East instead.

alva · June 26, 2003, 09:21

See maniacs post lower down the page.

dannubis · June 26, 2003, 09:35

Throughout history france has always had a keen interest in Flanders and the Netherlands.
When in 1830 belgium was created (only 18 years after the last napoleontic war) its neutrality was therefore guaranteed by england.

This in fact is the actual reason england used to declare war on the germans in the first world war. After the first world war, the international community of that time gave us our neutrality back (a habit i guess)...

August Borms · June 26, 2003, 11:21

Quote:

Originally posted by GP

Not a very effective strategy. Maybe they should have continued the Maginot line on their East instead.

I don't think it would have mattered much. Eben-Emael, for example, was superior to the French forts and considered to be invincible by French and British military experts. The Germans neutralized it in 20 minutes.
There was perhaps enough time and money left for 1 similar fort, so...

And even then, they would have still skipped the Ardennes

And it was probably better to be a neutral country under German occupation than a country allied to the French under German occupation

Maniac · June 26, 2003, 12:13

alva:

Quote:

The reason Belgium was created was to act as a buffer zone between Germany and France a couple of decades before. I don't think we were in any position to hold any of them of.

Germany didn't exist in 1830. In 1815 though, the United Netherlands were created to act as a buffer against France. But then in 1830 Belgium revolted (to the great joy of France of course). So Belgium wasn't "created".

dannubis:

Quote:

After the first world war, the international community of that time gave us our neutrality back (a habit i guess)...

Are you sure?

AFAIK it's exactly because of WWI we ceased being neutral between 1919 and 1936.

GP:

Quote:

Not a very effective strategy. Maybe they should have continued the Maginot line on their East instead.

That's easy to say afterwards. At the time being neutrality probably was a rational strategy. For example it worked for the Netherlands in WWI.

Panag · June 26, 2003, 13:02

Quote:

Originally posted by August Borms

Yeah, we had some kind of alliance with the French (which IIRC is also the reason why the Maginot line wasn't continued along the French-Belgian border)

hi ,

*cough* eben emael and the fortifications along many cities and rivers prove other wise , .....

but thanks to the economical crisis in the thirties albert the first decided he would use the money elsewhere , .....

one of the reasons he gave up after 18 days , .....

the original treaty can be seen on display in the army museum in brussels , ....

have a nice day

TCO · June 26, 2003, 13:25

Quote:

Originally posted by alva
The reason Belgium was created was to act as a buffer zone between Germany and France a couple of decades before. I don't think we were in any position to hold any of them of.

Don't you think, you would have been better off continueing the wall? How well did your passive strategy work out for you?

TCO · June 26, 2003, 13:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Maniac
alva:

That's easy to say afterwards. At the time being neutrality probably was a rational strategy. For example it worked for the Netherlands in WWI.

Looks like poor judgement. And cowardice and laziness.