Sarderia wrote:Monsone wrote:
1) It's a bit late for Libya. But it was no invasion. It was a coup to bring Idris to power as to gain an oil producing nation that is friendly to France. So rest assured that all French troops have already left Libya after the intervention ended.
2) France isn't invading left and right. Arabia was spured by an attack that killed 500 people in Sfax. Innocent civilians where killed by ruthless terrorists. So Arabia was beyond justified. If the same thing had happened in Iran, ypur response would be similar to mine. Czechoslovakia was because they where a threat to global peace and Germany participated to, as did the UK later on. It was an invasion to stop WW3 and not because of expansionisim. Lebanon had long been on the French list of territories that should be French in the public's opinion. So call it what you will, but Lebanon was s bloodless takeover. Syria was granted as a buffer zone by Iran to France to curb Turkish influence in the region by setting up a buffer state. And Libya was to gain an oil producing ally who would remain loyal to France. Call it Napoleonic, but two of those wars/interventions where to bring peace to the world, one was bloodless, the other was granted to France by Iran to curb Turkey and their influence, and the last one was for strategic reasons.
I will stop expanding whem my supply of natural resources isn't at risk. Whether that be via trade, diplomacy, or war, so be it. None of this would have happened if France didn't feel provoked to act and secure it's future by exerting it's influence forcefully. But I am willing to broker a deal, maybe even a full on trade partnership between the EETC and OPEC. But I would need the assurance that this deal won't backfire on me, or cause more trouble than it's worth.
Then the price war between Iran and Libya would still continue, unless Idris is taken down and the pre-coup government is restored. You already have Algeria and the Francophonie pact. Iran would also fund a coup against Idris in the future, as we did with Jordan and Palestine.
I'm offeting you a peaceful, meaningful solution. Yet you reject it because you fear competition from a country that wants to use it's resources to become modern and rich? And you also reject the proposition of a meaningful and mutually benefitial deal that could solve this easily. I'm starting to think that Iran has some deeper goal here.
Regardless of what it is, here is my final offer. The EETC and OPEC sign a comprehensive amd mutually beneficial trade deal, and the EETC will remain neutral in the Russian Civil War. After all, isn't this what you wanted all along? This is my final deal. And do tread carefully with Palestine. I believe the UK had plans for that area, and messing them up could have unintended consequences. Look, I'm trying to be reasonable here and reach a deal because in the long run, a price war would hurt everyone on all sides.
