McCain refused to meet unconditionaly with our....Alies???

[Colon™]

Originally posted by Dry
Allied nations do not lie to each other in order to force one another into war under false pretext, allied nations, do not argue that 'As a vassal state you have to do as you are told' (US ambassador in Belgium in a belgian TV debate).

I can't seem to remember this...

(I also think you confused Taliban with Al Qaeda)

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by onodera

Well, the Entente actually *was* GB+France+Russia.
Also, I approve of this picture.

If you are talking about the entente cordial, no it wasn't.

It was a French-british relationship ( partly to resolve theri colonial differences and partly to combat the germans. It also happened that at the time Frnace was cuddling up to Russia also as a counterbalance to Germany andAustria-Hungary.

[BeBMan]

The Entente Cordiale was some years later turned into the so-called Triple Entente which included indeed the UK, France and Russia.

[Dry]

Originally posted by Colon™
I can't seem to remember this...
(I also think you confused Taliban with Al Qaeda)

Debate on RTBF.

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Pekka
Also, I've never heard that Spain has a president???

the prime minister is the president of the goverment
it seems in spain they tend to use president rather than prime minister

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Lancer
The invasion was a mistake.

it is an ally's duty then to signal you that you're doing an error

[Patroklos]

So, just because Spain is a NATO ally they have carte blanche in every other sphere of politics?

Stop bunching your panties. There is no reason why Spain and America can't be in agreement on some things and not on others, or why cooperation on one front can't be maintained where there is a lack of it on another.

[MarkG]

look, we would not be discussing this if mccain simply said "i'll see him in the next nato meeting". but then again for that to happen mccain would have to know who he was talking about

[Colon™]

Originally posted by Dry

Debate on RTBF.

Is it online anywhere?

[Dry]

Originally posted by Colon™


Is it online anywhere?

No, I did not find it anywhere. I was trying to find traces of it on the net, because I only remember from first hand (= *I* heard it, and I remember the emotion of the day after on the radios), but I can't find any.

It was at the time of very high tension between B. and US, and criticisms on both sides went off control, calling each other names.
What I clearly remember was the quick speach of Guy Verhoofstad the very day after, making apologies for the ambassador, explaining he was not fluent enough in french to be aware of what 'vassal' truely meant.
After that, the other thing I remember was that, all of a sudden, no criticism on Belgium at all came from the US officials. It was as if some agreement had been passed between Belgium and US: we forget the incident, we (Belgium) call it a gaffe and we will never mention it in the future, but you (US) stop your criticisms about Belgium.
I very well remember that indeed, a few days after this, I never heard any criticism of Belgium from official US, and the tension between Belg. and US cooled down a lot.
As if both sides had understood that they both went too far/emotional.
In fact, in the end, the outcome of it was positive.

[Colon™]

Weird, I seemed to have missed that completely. Which ambassador was it?

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by onodera

Well, the Entente actually *was* GB+France+Russia.
Also, I approve of this picture.

Looks nice dosen't it?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Canada is liking having a big Rhode Island as an ally.

Good. You won't miss us.

You wouldn't know it by reading the pathetic CanPol election thread but EVERY federal party in Canada has now committed to ending our combat mission in Afghanistan.

Stephen Harper and the Conservatives have finally joined the "cut and run" majority opinion.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Vesayen
Spain pulling troops out of Iraq was reasonable. I want to bring our troops out of there too.

The problem was that June 30th was the ending date of the Spanish military agreement with the coaltion to overthrow Saddam. Zapatero decided to pull the troops out prior to that date and by June 8th, the withdrawl was complete (it began shortly after April 19). As you can imagine, that tended to mess with military plans as troops that were expected to be there.

I think there would have been far less animosity if Zapatero simply kept the troops until the end of the agreement (which would have been, what, a couple months more at most) and then decided not to reup. Other countries that did the same don't face such harsh feelings from the White House.

To add, John Kerry, who was basically the Democratic nominee for President by that time, also asked Zapatero not to withdraw.

[Dry]

I don't know the names of US ambassadors.
For the date, if you remember, it was a before the attack, because the question at that time was about, should Belgium allow supply for US troops to transit via Antwerp harbor.
Some people in the streets were for not even allowing US to have access to our harbors.
Whet the ambassador may well have meant was that as member of the NATO, Belgium had to honor her signature. If that was really what he meant (not what he said), he was right. And that is what happened afterward. The NATO text (and not any vassality status) did not allow us to deny access to our harbors.