Gay Patriot Header Image

Would There Be Green In Iran Without Purple In Iraq?

I have been following the demonstrations in Iran this past week with great interest.

I was a young boy in 1979 when the Islamic Revolution overthrew the Shah and led to a decades-long cold and hard war with the West.  It is my firm belief that the events in Iran in 1979 were the beginning of the War on America that resulted in the attacks of 9/11/2001.

I have stated on several occasions that the deaths on 9/11 were the result of actions & inactions of every President from Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush as the dealt with the ripple effects of the Iranian Islamic Revolution.

So that all being said, what the hell is my headline all about?   Well, I posted this thought on Twitter earlier today:

Raise your hand if you think the Iranians would be marching now if Saddam had not been taken out in 2003 and successful elections in Iraq?

Can anyone honestly think that the Iranian people could have NOT been inspired by the overthrow of the brutal Saddam Hussein and the subsequent free and FAIR elections in Iraq?  If you think not, you are delusional and living in a dream world.

No matter what the final outcome in Iran is, I am confident that the marches in the streets will represent another battlefield win by the United States against Islamic terrorism.  The actions of President George W. Bush and the heroic deeds of our US military has had a significance influence on the future of Iran — whether it ends this week or in 10 years.

UPDATE: I’m not the only one that feels this way.  Blogger Kirk Petersen remarks: It is a vindication of the decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein and liberate Iraq.

Petersen also put me onto a column by Daniel Finkelstein of The London Times who today even more forcefully connects the dots between American ideals and actions and the protests for election fairness in Iran.  Read the whole thing!

For years we have been told, we neocons, that other cultures don’t want our liberty, our American freedom. Yankee go home! But it isn’t true. Because millions of Iranians do want it. Yes, they want their sovereignty, and demand respect for their nation and its great history. No, they don’t want foreign interference and manipulation. But they still insist upon their rights and their freedom. They know that liberty isn’t American or British. It is Iranian, it is human.

It is not part of their [Iran's] precious heritage that someone be charged with a capital offence for circulating a petition on women’s rights. Nor that nine-year-old girls should be eligible for the death penalty, and children hanged for their crimes. There is no special Iranian will, even given their religious conservatism, that students should be flogged in public for being flirtatious, and homosexuals hanged in the streets.

The protests for Mr Mousavi do not just expose the lie of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s landslide victory. They expose the lie that there is something Western in wanting democracy and human rights.

Precisely.  There is no question that the modern-day quest for liberty and freedom throughout the world that continues today had its origins on July 4, 1776 with those visionary words and yet simple theory of self-government:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

20 Comments

  1. Although it will lead to the loss of many lives, I am praying that the Iranians come out tomorrow to protest.

    Of course the changes in Iraq are having an effect.
    The failure of Hizzbullah to gain more seats in Lebanon are another sign.

    A democracy in a muslim country would not look like the US, but have any of you been to Western Turkey? I”ll take that kind of democracy any day over the mullatocracy that is present day Iran.

    Comment by Leah — June 19, 2009 @ 7:09 pm - June 19, 2009

  2. Several protesters were chanting “Remember What Happened To Sadaam”. One should also read ex President Bush’s 2003 speech to Iranians supporting their right to be free.

    Comment by eaglewingz08 — June 19, 2009 @ 7:38 pm - June 19, 2009

  3. I wonder when the left will have to recognize that G. W. Bush did the right thing when he removed Saddam? It may be sooner than I ever thought.

    Comment by Swampfox — June 19, 2009 @ 8:28 pm - June 19, 2009

  4. Thanks for the link, Bruce. G.W.Bush has plenty to answer for, but I think history will be kinder to him than many of his contemporaries have been.

    Comment by Kirk Petersen — June 19, 2009 @ 8:36 pm - June 19, 2009

  5. Bruce, you may be right, but I’d need more evidence as in statements from protesters. And even so it’s unprovable, because you can’t go back and replay history using different variables. And I say this a confirmed neocon who supported the war in Iraq and who still does.

    Comment by Tom the Redhunter — June 19, 2009 @ 9:05 pm - June 19, 2009

  6. While I can honestly say that I have always been in awe of our founding documents, I have never cried over a quote from the Declaration until today. I guess its because of the context.

    I think that God does and has spoken outside of the Bible and that some works have His Spirit in them. If any secular document can be said to be “holy”, it is the Declaration of Independence, particularly the above quote. If any words roar out in history as inspired by Truth, these words do.

    Wow. Wow. How bloody lucky are we??? God bless the Iranians and I hope that they can someday soon enjoy the human right of liberty the way that we do.

    (And there you have it folks, my 4th of July America-Lovin’ post weeks ahead of time…..)

    Comment by Peggy — June 19, 2009 @ 11:36 pm - June 19, 2009

  7. A well-written post; the Iranian protesters have been on my mind all week, and in my prayers also.

    I remember well, watching footage of the first (true, democratic) election day in Iraq, it was December, 2005 I think. Jubilant Iraqis with purple fingers; families reportedly walking miles to get to a poll to vote. I can still recall vividly how proud I felt, to be an American, and how fortunate!

    Comment by Janemarie — June 20, 2009 @ 12:55 am - June 20, 2009

  8. There is an excellent article, two years old, that discusses the impact free, secular Iraq was having inside Iran. http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2007/05/14/shiite_cleric_gains_sway_across_border/

    In that article, they mention Grand Ayatollah Montazori, who may well become an important player in all this. I posted on that the other day. You can find it -
    http://wolfhowling.blogspot.com/2009/06/iran-09-fire-still-burning-incendiary.html

    Comment by GW — June 20, 2009 @ 2:38 am - June 20, 2009

  9. The tree of liberty is watered by blood. That was true in America and that will be true in Iran.

    Just as Reagan is responsible for the Berlin wall falling, so is GW Bush responsible for the Iranian uprising. He has injected the liberty virus.

    Bush had constant refrain that he believe the desire for freedom was a human one and that liberty can be achieved in the Middle East countries. Iraq is still in the crucible but it has encouraged other countries.

    Bush is wildly popular in Ukraine, Georgia , Serbia, Moldavia and other countries that have recently acheived greater freedom.

    If Iran acheives the revolt then I expect the same will be in Iran. They will remember the people who spoke of freedom for them. Obama will not fare so well with his equivalence speeches. They are not inspiring for freedom.

    Comment by RAH — June 20, 2009 @ 7:31 am - June 20, 2009

  10. Ahmadinejad became President of Iran due to the American presence in Iraq. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

    Comment by Ignatius — June 20, 2009 @ 10:16 am - June 20, 2009

  11. If you want to bring up history, then you should go back to 1953, not just 1979 in Iran. At that time, Iran had an elected, sovereign government. Dagnabbit, however, they just didn’t want to bend the US and the British oil demands. So, the CIA overthrew the government and installed the Shah as dictator for the next 26 years and played nice with US during that time.

    Have you noticed that in some (but not all) places where there’s been hated for the US, it’s stemmed from the US’ interference in those countries? Look at Afghanistan: we used them as or pawns in our fight with the Russians. As much as people like to credit Reagan with this “freedom fight” it did actually start with Carter, who was advised he could turn Afghanistan into “Russia’s Vietnam”. Nice job, but then as soon it was over, the US deserted those people, left it war-torn country – so, yet another place for anti-US sentiments to grow and fester. Perhaps if we had offered them proper aid to rebuild, the Taliban/Al Queda wouldnt have been a such a fertile ground in which to grow.

    It’s not surprising that the time was ripe for a revolution in 79 nor was it so anti-US.
    A full theocracy is certainly not better than a dictatorship (full and absolute rule resting in one person). So, as the protests over the elections in Iran now possibly bloom into full revolution, will it run its own course with the people there? Will we and other countries offer some kind of support or will it go further and we end back where it all started in 1953?

    PS – Not to mention the material support we gave to Saddam Huessin in the 80s under Reagan in their war against Iran, and of course we know how that little bit help ended up…

    Comment by Kevin — June 20, 2009 @ 12:36 pm - June 20, 2009

  12. iranians deserve all the credit for their own revolution. when neocons start dying in the streets of tehran, i’ll tip my hat to them. at the point, any attempt to take credit away from the protestors seems like crass partisanship.

    Comment by Chad — June 20, 2009 @ 2:11 pm - June 20, 2009

  13. Ignatius, a little more digging with inform you that post hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy. Ahmadinejad became president because he had the right attitude towards Jews, or nuclear development, or just because the mullahs liked him better, not just because of the overthrow of Saddam.

    Comment by Matt — June 20, 2009 @ 2:13 pm - June 20, 2009

  14. I absolutely LOVE this comment (RAH, #9): Just as Reagan is responsible for the Berlin wall falling so is GW Bush responsible for the Iranian uprising. He has injected the liberty virus.

    The virus of liberty! Man, I wish I’d have thought of that. But I’m definitely going to use it a lot from now on.

    Awesome.

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — June 20, 2009 @ 3:44 pm - June 20, 2009

  15. Matt, yes, post hoc… is a logical fallacy. I’m drawing a parallel between my comment and the blog post, specifically Bruce’s attempt at causality.

    Comment by Ignatius — June 20, 2009 @ 4:24 pm - June 20, 2009

  16. Kevin and Chad typify all the comments we’ve read about Not being involved because if we do it will make it worse

    Then there’s the theory that Obama’s election has more of an impact than Iraq’s

    But hey, supporting the Iranian people is hard Promoting Christian Conspiracies is easier (HT AP)

    Fun fact. If Europe had gotten out of their collective sloth and smacked Hitler when he invaded Checslovakia, WW II wouldn’t have happened. But hey, I’m sure they thought back then it was an internal matter.

    Chad’s so blinded by his hatred of “neo-cons” renders him immue to reason, and to that the post is talking about Iraqis, who Chad would have preferred to be left under Saddam.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 20, 2009 @ 5:47 pm - June 20, 2009

  17. The answer to the question is simply NO.

    Without the freedom the United States fought for in Iraq & A-stan, the Iranians would not have turned out to vote in the mass that they did. They would have already known their fate if Saddam & the Taliban were still running amock over their own people. One don’t have to be a rocket scientist to realize that. They see it working to their east and west.

    Thank you President Bush for fighting the enemy there and the nay sayers here. It will be worth being stuck with “THAT ONE” for 4 years if the Iranian people stick to it.

    Comment by EDinTampa — June 20, 2009 @ 9:08 pm - June 20, 2009

  18. Bush said that he wanted to plant the seeds of democracy in the Middle East – he did.

    Not just Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Iran. But also in places like Saudia Arabia. It was unthinkable of that there would be elections in Saudia Arabia. Yet, it was just a couple of years ago that they held elections there. Granted, they were local elections, of no real consequence; but elections they were.

    As the saying goes – to move a mountain you start with a single stone.

    Comment by Charles — June 20, 2009 @ 11:26 pm - June 20, 2009

  19. yikes, I wrote a lengthy reply but it got lost. I will write something on my blog dedicated to the subject and provide a link instead.

    Comment by thestraightaussie — June 21, 2009 @ 7:04 pm - June 21, 2009

  20. Hmm jsut thought of something.

    Would there be Orange in Ukraine w/o purple in Iraq?
    Would there be Cedar in Lebanon w/o purple in Iraq?
    Would there be Green in Iran w/o purple in Iraq?

    President George H W Bush, building the real rainbow coalition since 2002 :-)

    Comment by The Livewire — June 23, 2009 @ 7:13 am - June 23, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.