Belgium gives in.

[Bereta_Eder]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally posted by GP


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

To appease the Germans, I guess...

[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.

[Sikander]

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]

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]

See maniacs post lower down the page.

[dannubis]

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]

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]

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.

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:

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:

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]

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]

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]

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.