The US invaded under the War on Terror pretext as a war profiteering entrerprise. They brought Unaco, Haliburton, KBR, PMCs, and other contractors in to extract value from the region to bring profits to the imperial core.

How are these two things the same?

[–] Sprinklebump@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The USSR was there to oppose the US by fighting their proxies and defend the socialists in Afghanistan who supported them during the invasion.

Yes.

And also they wanted to protect thier trade and their borders from other imperialsts.

Why cant it be both?

Why are you unable to recognize that USSR could invade Afghanistan to protect socialst and to protect trade and secure thier borders?

Why cant you just admit that the USSR did some unsavory things? Do you think they are a perfect embodiment of communism?

They assassinated the communist president of Afghanistan before they invaded!

All othet arguments aside i dont support governments who use assassination that way.

[–] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The issue is that it isn't imperialist. You are unable to demarcate between what you consider unsavory actions and imperialism.

I'm not saying that i agree with all of the USSR's actions. I never said i was in support of this particular action for that matter. I am saying that the USSR was not imperialist because it did not engage in capitalist extraction or monopolization.