Actually they say that lethal weapondry was not sent until after the Soviet invasion.Actually they say there was no direct military assistance. After the invasion there were CIA agents on the ground helping to arm them.
We were aiding Communist rebels, your claim was that this aid prompted the Soviets to invade, this is a lie because a) at the time we started providing financial aid they already had troops on the ground, and b) at the time weapons were sent to the Mujahadeen the Soviets had already begun the formal invasion.I am not sure what your point is because as I stated the Soviets had some presence there for decades. We didn't particularly care until it looked like we could give them one hell of quagmire.
Did the Soviets ever claim a potential Muslim uprising as a raison de'tre for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.Really? You believe that and believe that the Soviets were 100% confident this was the case and did not think that it could cause similar uprising within the Soviet Union among its Muslim population?
Again so what?The Soviet Union does border Afghanistan.
Understood the U.S. is responsible for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan because the U.S. funded the Mujahadeen, but the Soviet Union is not responsible for the U.S. invasion of Vietnam because the Soviet Union funded the Vietnamese communists. What we did was invade South Vietnam to defend an allied government from Soviet funded and armed Communist rebels. It's the exact same situation.No, plain and simply, because it wasn't an invasion. South Vietnam was separate from North Vietnam and troops were committed there in considerable numbers. What we did was a massive expansion of the conflict and was not motivated by anything specific done by the Soviets.
As a result of what? Arms were not sent until after the invasion, funding was not authorized until the Soviets had already sent in their troops.Lol, sorry. I was gonna say we knew the Soviet Union was more likely to invade as a result.
The United Nations.What outside international observers?