Should Iraq have kept all their statues of Saddam Hussein standing?

How about all the monuments to King George III? Are there a lot of statues around the original 13 colonies honoring him? Does Germany have any statues of Hitler standing in pubic right now? Italy of Mussolini?

What if we ultimately have to invade North Korea and dispose of Kim Jong Un. Do you think they would like to keep all the statues of him standing to remember their history?

MrWonka said:

How about all the monuments to King George III? Are there a lot of statues around the original 13 colonies honoring him? Does Germany have any statues of Hitler standing in pubic right now? Italy of Mussolini?

What if we ultimately have to invade North Korea and dispose of Kim Jong Un. Do you think they would like to keep all the statues of him standing to remember their history?

Click to expand...

Presumably you're comparing these turds to Robert E. Lee?

Different circumstances with a civil war, especially in the (relatively) gentlemanly wars of the 19th century.

Lee wasn't a political leader. He was a military commander and has become symbolic of the Confederacy and Victorian principles, but that's not the same as running the show.

If Jefferson Davis had placed a bunch of statues of himself in the southern states while he was running the Confederacy, you'd better believe those would be gone.

And even his opponents in the war owe him a debt of gratitude, as he personally wrecked the Confederacy's chances of switching to guerrilla warfare. If he had been on board, the struggle would have gone on for much longer.

MrWonka said:

How about all the monuments to King George III? Are there a lot of statues around the original 13 colonies honoring him? Does Germany have any statues of Hitler standing in pubic right now? Italy of Mussolini?

What if we ultimately have to invade North Korea and dispose of Kim Jong Un. Do you think they would like to keep all the statues of him standing to remember their history?

Click to expand...

Maybe not all. And in the instant of toppling a mass murder and tyrant...a mob..... but after over a hundred years? It sounds rather sick to topple statues and burn books. A really confused society.

WillyPete said:

Presumably you're comparing these turds to Robert E. Lee?

Different circumstances with a civil war, especially in the (relatively) gentlemanly wars of the 19th century.

Lee wasn't a political leader. He was a military commander and has become symbolic of the Confederacy and Victorian principles, but that's not the same as running the show.

If Jefferson Davis had placed a bunch of statues of himself in the southern states while he was running the Confederacy, you'd better believe those would be gone.

Click to expand...

Well I was actually referring a bit more to Davis, but certainly Lee as well. Do you think Iraq should and will erect a lot of statues to honor the leaders of the insurgency from the Iraq war? Would Saddam's chief general deserve a statue?

Hitler was a political leader. Did some of his main generals get statues of themselves erected in Germany? Are their statues of Thomas Gage in the 13 colonies some where?

I wouldn't agree to Hitler standing in pubic anywhere.:rofl

That said I don't remember anything about Robert E. Lee having initiated a war causing at least 60 million dead nor having gassed (and otherwise murdered) millions of civilians.

At the end of the day its every individual country's choice what statues they keep (or not) of even their more unsavoury past leaders.

And exclusively binary polls are something I don't vote in anyway.

joG said:

but after over a hundred years?

Click to expand...

What if their were signs that followers of Saddam Hussein were gaining traction again, and had managed to get elected someone completely agreed with the way Hussein governed?

Russia has plenty of statues of Stalin and Lenin remaining. Do you think that could be a sign that the country as whole hasn't truly moved on from those days and is in danger of trying to assert itself with an Iron Fist again?

Chagos said:

At the end of the day its every individual country's choice what statues they keep (or not) of even their more unsavoury past leaders.

Click to expand...

Do you not think that a country continuing to honor past villains is a sign that the country as a whole has not truly moved on from the terrible ideas that those leaders represented? Don't you think it's time Russia finally gets ride of some of it's memorials to Stalin and Lenin? They seem like a country that doesn't quite want to let go of that time period and may be in danger of repeating their mistakes and letting leaders just like them gain traction again..don't you think?

Chagos said:

And exclusively binary polls are something I don't vote in anyway.

Click to expand...

So you think they should have just cut the statues of Saddam in half or something?

Does statue mean honoring? Well for some yes, some examples like gods, idols, presidents, and famous personnel, but I think some statues can serve as a purpose of remember of what violence had happened before to somehow avoid the same mistakes. Remembering a statue is okay for me, while honoring of a figure of a villain is a big no for me.

Do Iraq citizens totally condemn Saddam Hussein? I think some of them does not.

MrWonka said:

What if their were signs that followers of Saddam Hussein were gaining traction again, and had managed to get elected someone completely agreed with the way Hussein governed?

Russia has plenty of statues of Stalin and Lenin remaining. Do you think that could be a sign that the country as whole hasn't truly moved on from those days and is in danger of trying to assert itself with an Iron Fist again?

Click to expand...

You do realize that there is a considerable difference between the aftermath of deposing a tyrannical regime and that of a centuries old democracy? I mean in politological terms.

joG said:

You do realize that there is a considerable difference between the aftermath of deposing a tyrannical regime and that of a centuries old democracy? I mean in politological terms.

Click to expand...

The confederacy wasn't a centuries old democracy. It was a brief attempt at a tyrannical democracy formed by people who didn't like the fact that lost a vote. When it was crushed all remnants of it should have been obliterated at the time, but because the south is still but hurt from that ass kicking they want to cling to the delusion that their ancestors were patriots not traitors. By allowing them to keep clinging to that delusion to many of them have convinced themselves that their ancestors beliefs about black people were true as well.

MrWonka said:

The confederacy wasn't a centuries old democracy. It was a brief attempt at a tyrannical democracy formed by people who didn't like the fact that lost a vote. When it was crushed all remnants of it should have been obliterated at the time, but because the south is still but hurt from that ass kicking they want to cling to the delusion that their ancestors were patriots not traitors. By allowing them to keep clinging to that delusion to many of them have convinced themselves that their ancestors beliefs about black people were true as well.

Click to expand...

It wasn't in the aftermath of the Confederate collapse that we are fudging our heritage and history now.