Show of HandsShow of Hands

ColWestRet June 5th, 2017 2:17pm

In April, 2003, the US military secured the city of Baghdad. Local residents took to the streets, and, at Firdos Square, they destroyed the statue of Saddam Hussein. Should the Iraqi people kept the statue because it was a part of their history?

7 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

FacePalm That Trick Never Works
06/09/17 2:59 am

I do not know why they would have. In that case the statue was put there only a year prior to commemorate Saddam's birthday. It had no sentimental value and little historical value except as a symbol to be removed. In fact, a far more meaningful monument was torn down in order that it could be placed in the square.

No, there was no good reason to leave it standing.

TheSpookyGhost paleoconservative
06/05/17 3:33 pm

Yes, they should have. Saddam Hussein provided far better conditions than the sad excuse of a government they have now.

jlong105 Indiana
06/05/17 11:32 am

I was in Iraq at that time. There were literally hundreds if not thousands of saddam statues and images. He was also on every bill of currency. He erected the statues and commissioned the murals to feed his own ego.

This is not an accurate comparison to the south's statues.

Jazzy5 USA
06/05/17 1:50 pm

Thank you. Plus his sons were evil to the people.

HaydnDailey Ocean County, New Jersey
06/05/17 11:15 am

A totalitarian dictator was not part of Iraqi "History" that should be noted.

geoag02 Dallas, TX
06/05/17 9:47 am

I get why they did it, but still I think that sort of thing should be preserved... just not on the main square in the middle of town.

jfish82285 Tennessean in Colorado
06/05/17 11:18 am

Oh, you mean in like a museum of sorts rather than in a public place of honor?

RussianThunder Russia and USA
06/05/17 9:42 am

We all get it. You don't like confederate monuments and think they should be removed. Can we move on?

06/05/17 9:17 am

It's easier not to repeat history when you don't destroy the artifacts.

06/05/17 9:33 am

I'm not saying it should have remained where it was. I'm just saying it shouldn't have been destroyed. They should have put it in a museum with a bunch of other statues exactly like it so future generations could see, firsthand, the egomania inherent in dictatorship.

06/05/17 9:37 am

I've seen a lot of polls on this from over the weekend- what's behind all of them?

06/05/17 9:44 am

What was the point of their polls?

06/05/17 9:45 am

Nvmd just saw the articles about tearing down confederate statues

Luftwaffe South of Heaven
06/05/17 12:16 pm

None of that stuff goes in Museums, they get used for scraps. Liberals lie like that, plus why does it matter if it's in public view outside or public view inside? Either way, it's open to public viewing.

Luftwaffe South of Heaven
06/05/17 12:26 pm

I'd prefer them to stay right where they are, Southern Culture includes the Confederacy, literally the only ones who care this much about removing all things Confederate are blacks, Northerners, and white liberals.

Luftwaffe South of Heaven
06/05/17 12:28 pm

MLK was a man who cheated on his wife, and even supported Communism, and was a part of the movement now known to be funded by the Soviet Union. Nelson Mandela openly wanted to kill all whites and was a Communist, before any statue of Confederates are removed, see to it that the ones of MLK and Mandela leave first.

Luftwaffe South of Heaven
06/05/17 12:31 pm

Also, no Southerner I know has any pride of the Confederacy because they want to reinstitute slavery, they just like being a part of a culture that's White, Chrisitan, Conservative, and their own. The Confederacy embodied that movement.

Luftwaffe South of Heaven
06/05/17 12:36 pm

Literally did everything our Founding Fathers did against the British.

Luftwaffe South of Heaven
06/05/17 12:50 pm

Our founding fathers were mainly racist slave-owning white men, who fought for their own sovereignty over a federal power that they thought was oppressing them and afterward wanted to create a society for whites and get rid of blacks. That's literally what the Southern States would have done within 50 years after the civil war.

Our first immigration laws were only limited to free whites of good character, and many of our early presidents were a part of organizations to deport blacks to Africa, and then colonize them.

The U.S. was founded by white, Chrisitan, slave owning, racist, women beating, farmers, who hated a federal government, and that's part of what makes this nation what it is today. Opposing the Confederacy because of those reasons would logically have to make you oppose any American president before JFK.

Luftwaffe South of Heaven
06/05/17 1:02 pm

The Founding Fathers wanted sovereignty, then they wanted to get rid of blacks, and expand with what we called Manifest Destiny "American Lebensraum" and colonize anyone who was nonwhite. Really, study American history, the Founding Fathers statements, the ones that aren't cherry-picked, are a lot more racist than those Confederate Statues.

Luftwaffe South of Heaven
06/05/17 1:42 pm

It lasted less than 10 years, but I guess an embodiment of what makes the South Unique and different.

Luftwaffe South of Heaven
06/05/17 1:58 pm

No, not at all. That's not at all what I've been saying.

Luftwaffe South of Heaven
06/05/17 4:58 pm

Treason in the same context that the U.S. committed Treason against Great Britain. Also, as for slavery, it would have probably eneded within 50 years, and the blacks most likely would have been relocated. That's exactly what a lot of our founding fathers were hoping.

Nemacyst No Lives Matter
06/05/17 9:08 am

This user is currently being ignored

06/05/17 9:39 am

They didn't have nerve gas, but I bet the plantation owners would have used it if they had it to keep from freeing their slaves.

ezh2o Texas Hill Country
06/05/17 10:09 am

Slavery was a small part of the reason for our Civil War. I place that war on Pres. Lincoln's desire to take away states rights and give the federal government more power over their citizens.

06/05/17 10:15 am

I agree, but that doesn't change what I said about slave owners' attitudes toward their slaves.

ezh2o Texas Hill Country
06/05/17 10:59 am

There was good and bad plantation owners. Good ones treated slaves better than bad ones. My ancestors used freeman blacks and was threatened and attacked by one of them.

06/05/17 11:01 am

I'm not sure how that's relevant here.
Also, "were."

Ebola1 Florida
06/05/17 7:25 am

That would be up to them. Why would I advise them what to do?