Is it ethical for a communist government to intervene in a crisis like Libya or Syria and install a stable...

Is it ethical for a communist government to intervene in a crisis like Libya or Syria and install a stable, left-wing government?

This strategy led fiasco in Afghanistan but nearly prevented Spain from being taken over by fascists. Soviet and Cuban troops also helped kick colonizers and collaborators out of former Portuguese Africa.

Libya is so fucked up though that it seems pretty clear that intervention by a well-meaning power would make things better.

Libians deserves it for betraying the colonel.
The only right intervention is preventing any intervention by other forces.

Islands of socialism can't exist in seas of capitalism. Of course you have to give guns to your allies everywhere and have them overthrow existing capitalist regimes.

More like sealed its fate by the Stalinist counterrevolution.


I'd say not only is ethical, it's necessary. Look at Vietnam's intervention in Cambodia for an example.

Also, in Afghanistan, the USSR was invited multiple times by the legitimate government of Afghanistan. It wasn't a burger style retarded take-over

installed governments are never stable

Just back the Qaddafis.

There already is a stable Arab Socialist government. The USSR would have just continued lending its support to Assad.

Only because USSR couldn't into guerrilla tactics. When they brought in Cuban advisors, they basically won. But by then, the revisionists were launching their coup.

The Chinese would export a puppet insurgency, because Chinese characteristics.

No, but I'd be lying if I didn't admit Soviet imperialism was an upgrade over the Americans and Europeans.

Who cares about "ethics"? We should do whatever is necessary to spread the revolution.

I don't think even America has made a doublecross that blatant

So this is how trots became neocons

The Afghan government was inviting the soviets in during Taraki's rule during which the consistently refused, only when Amin overthrew and killed Taraki did the Soviet's agree to intervene in Afghanistan and assassinated Amin.

Actually they literally did the same exact thing to Diem in South Vietnam.

Imperialism, Carpet Bombing, and even Forced Relocation are okay if the right people are doing it.(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

Imperialism is not a left-wing thing, there is a difference between exploiting nations for profit and financing revolution to overthrow capitalist exploitation




can someone please explain what's happening in the picture, like she's getting fucked of course, but the picture in terms of anatomy makes no sense

Good subject.

And flooded west Africa with gangs of child soldiers in the process.

Yup. It's a literal terrorist state where you get sold into slavery if you're a West African migrant or your skin's a shade or two too dark like the Tuareg (black Berbers). Going in there to clean up the mess NATO (North American Terrorist Organization) made ain't even comparable to say overthrowing a whole government cuz the guy at the very top didn't wanna sell you and your buddies his country's oil.

I would say it's more ethical to protect their right to self-determination before trying to force our ideology onto them.

Erm, the Soviets were very reluctant in getting involved and intervened waaay too late if anything.

They were content with the previous two regimes, the monarchy and the coup that toppled him.

People think the Soviets invaded, even I did until recently, it was legitimately an intervention and the Afghanis pulled off their own communist revolution without Soviet support (again the Soviets didn't want to rock the boat).

I think that's the point of the picture; it makes no sense.

The irony is that the BO is banning people for opinions xe clearly shares.