If Gingrich is elected, he will "replace" Assad

[Agathor]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57338554-503544/gingrich-says-he-would-replace-assad/

OH DEAR

[socialistjustin]

Of course he will. He follows the neocon line and thinks that democracy should be brought to people by force unless you happen to be friends with the ruling class. Hardly surprising.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

No matter who is elected America's path is that of never ending war.Until capitalism has been overthrown death is the only way for the imperialists to believe they are important.

[Revy]

Gingrich said, "I can give you a three-second answer. Replace Assad. I mean Assad is our enemy. He is an ally of Iran. It is a bad dictatorship. It is to our interest to get rid of dictators of this kind."This guy is not well spoken at all. "I mean Assad is our enemy. He is an ally of Iran. It is a bad dictatorship." :laugh:

Of course, the choice of words is interesting, "bad dictatorship". A bad dictatorship is a regime that has been declared an enemy. A "good" dictatorship is one which benefits the US and acts in its interest. The US has never criticized Uzbekistan, or Saudi Arabia, because those countries are U.S. allies.

[rundontwalk]

Did you see where he said he wanted Bolton as his Secretary of State? Dude scares me.

[Agathor]

This guy is not well spoken at all. "I mean Assad is our enemy. He is an ally of Iran. It is a bad dictatorship." :laugh:

Of course, the choice of words is interesting, "bad dictatorship". A bad dictatorship is a regime that has been declared an enemy. A "good" dictatorship is one which benefits the US and acts in its interest. The US has never criticized Uzbekistan, or Saudi Arabia, because those countries are U.S. allies.

I noticed that too. He's so brazen about it. He just does not give a fuck.

[GPDP]

I noticed that too. He's so brazen about it. He just does not give a fuck.

Nowadays, Republicans as a whole don't even bother trying to make their vitriol sound good. They are blunt as hell, because they know they can get away with it. Unlike with the Democrats, the Republican base largely knows exactly what they're voting for. Because of this, Republicans don't need to sugarcoat their rhetoric.

This will become especially true as the class struggle widens and the American people become more sharply divided into workers on one side and the bourgeois and their petit-bourgeois sympathizers on the other. All the "rich or poor, we're all Americans" bullshit is being revealed day by day for the farce it truly is. Thus, Republicans know it is futile to try to appeal to workers. Better to speak directly to their base, and then work towards disenfranchising and attacking workers to further cement their power.

[thefinalmarch]

Don't know why people are in such an uproar about Gingrich specifically. Assad will be overthrown regardless who the US president is at the time, if global capitalism requires it.

As GPDP put it in an older thread:

Oh boy, here we go again.

Although to the people saying Obama would be an idiot to go to war with Iran - have we forgotten the necessities of imperialism? Sometimes presidents will do wildly unpopular shit, even if they know it will hurt them politically. The needs of global capitalism trump the individual whims of leaders time and time again.

[manic expression]

The headline makes it sound like Gingrich wants to take Assad's office in Syria, which made me chuckle.

But if you ask me, Republicans usually say aloud what Democrats want to do anyway so it's not like Gingrich is saying anything radically different from the present US stance, which is to attempt to oppress Syria.

[cb9's_unity]

This guy is not well spoken at all. "I mean Assad is our enemy. He is an ally of Iran. It is a bad dictatorship." :laugh:

Of course, the choice of words is interesting, "bad dictatorship". A bad dictatorship is a regime that has been declared an enemy. A "good" dictatorship is one which benefits the US and acts in its interest. The US has never criticized Uzbekistan, or Saudi Arabia, because those countries are U.S. allies.

I'm just finishing up a course on modern Latin America, so I could probably add a few, or a lot, more nations on to that list of "good" dictatorships.

I wonder if its possible that Gingrich knows exactly what he said, but also knows that the American media would gloss over the distinction.

[Belleraphone]

http://www.picshag.com/pics/102009/if-you-dont-come-to-democracy-big.jpg

[Le Socialiste]

Steps are already being taken to remove Assad, with the end goal of a Western-friendly regime. The U.S. is actively working with Turkey (who is housing the Syrian National Council and Free Syrian Army) and the Arab League to unseat Assad and install a government more willing to work with the West. One of the main objectives is the further isolation of Iran from the international community, which has close ties with Syria and the Assad regime. Add Saudi Arabia's interest in the matter (wanting to break off Syria's connections with Iran), and you have a rapidly escalating situation. Obama and his administration are in talks with Ankara which involve Turkey military involvement in the country as well.

Now you have Russia and China who are growing increasingly upset over these events, as they too have relatively close ties with the Assad government. Russia has taken the first step in sending an aircraft-carrying cruiser, two escort ships, and anti-cruise ship missiles to Tartus, which places it in direct opposition with the U.S. and the West. Once again we're seeing a sharpening in international relations as ties between the world's major powers continue to deteriorate.

So Gingrich's statements aren't exactly out of place given the position and attitude taken by the financial-political elite towards Syria. They see an opening, and they're intent on seizing it. Whether or not Russia, Iran, and China actually resist remains an open point for debate.