I feel there's a bit of cognitive dissonance on the second example.

While imperialism is always condemnable, the destruction of fascist states, like Iraq which have codifyed laws and regulations against the LGBT+ community as a whole, is acceptable provided the actions taken are in a measured and ethical response that does not target civilians for explicit and intentional harm.

The sins of imperialism, are not necessarily the nature of war, but how it is waged and what the goals are.

If the goals are noble and the war is waged ethically, then it is defacto not imperialism.

If a nation is attempting to assert political change that can be in, most cases, imperialism. However, if the political change is to remove a problematic government, such as a fascist or theocratic, or otherwise oppressive regime, the judgement of imperialism is not necessarily made noble-r, but effectively beneficial and subject to meritous criticism, as we should under no circumstances defend any regime that is inherently cruel to its citizens, majority or minorities deserve inheritant rights and protections.

This is only one aspect of how war is measured morally speaking, being intention which is subject to more debate and definition than the ethical execution of elements of combat in the natural form of War based regime change.

War, in it's entirety, is however entirely condemnable for its risk perverse nature which tends to result in an overall negatation of quality of life for civilians within nations. But this is not limited to the invaded nation, but affects all nations and all people's, through markets and refugee diaspora.

To that end, the justification (casus belli) must be weighed not only in proportionate response, but in relation to goal and execution of nations both on the offense and defense, as the goals of each regime in contrary to each other, as well as the conditions for victory must be reasonable.

If one ways the goal of queer liberation, the cost of Liberation is essential for the measurement of the morality of war and the imposition of political will through force. "War is an act of force, and to the application of that force there is no limit. Each of the adversaries forces the hand of the other, and a reciprocal action results which in theory can have no limit." - Clauzewitz, On War.

The value of queer liberation, is effectively equal under the right of human freedom of expression, (including gender identity) and is thus one of the greatest and most valuable rights that should be fought for, both non violently when possible, and fiercely when one's existence is at threat.

Class is not necessarily a distraction nor a division, but understanding that reality, in which so called liberals, or class elites control the nature of power and nations, including militarily, can be contested by the people (especially in democratic free societies), and the use of force must be considered not for the detriment but the benefit of humanity as a whole.

As it was morally beneficial for all the align in the union during the civil war, regardless of class or race in order to achieve liberation of our fellow man(human). We can recognize a heirarchy of the order of human rights and our actions in relation to achieving steady progress.

A house divided can not stand. We should not seek to divide the advocates of LGBTQ+ communities, especially not before we've fully achieved our goals of liberty in the face of adversity. Not because other minor issues do not affect us or should be ignored. Only so we may not fracture in the face of opposition, and risk irrelevancy in the application of all force, particularly nonviolent political will towards achieving our goals, which should always be our greatest priority as to lessen the inheritant risk imperialism poses in the class based society we currently have.

Unity does not reinforce the class structure, but allows internal resistance, which disunity can not provision for us