What would you do with Iran in 1979?

[Beet]

You don't need a pro-US government, just a non-Islamist one.

Nothing wrong with an Islamist government.

Nothing wrong with the current government in Iran? Um, no.

The problem is Islamist governments are fundamentally opposed to US influence in the long term, even if we ally with them in the short term. Non-Islamist governments are not.

[Beet]

Nations are allowed to be opposed to US influence.  

And, is the current government of Iran the same as all the other Islamic governments?  Nope.  Again, it's not the type of government that is distatesful, but rather the leaders behind the government.  The same holds true for Democracies and Republics.  

You wouldn't say that about a communist government though-- so clearly you need to modify your statement.

Islamist governments are ideological governments and clearly distasteful from the perspective of both US interests and domestic liberties.

[Beet]

Nations are allowed to be opposed to US influence.  

And, is the current government of Iran the same as all the other Islamic governments?  Nope.  Again, it's not the type of government that is distatesful, but rather the leaders behind the government.  The same holds true for Democracies and Republics.  

You wouldn't say that about a communist government though-- so clearly you need to modify your statement.

Sure I would.  I hate generalities, especially when cast in the worst light.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Democracies are also ideological.  Let's not forget that.  And just because something doesn't agree with our point of view means it has to be changed, especially in regards to "US interests."

Ok, I misread you. In this case we simply have a disagreement in values. IMO, theocratic Islamist governments are a problem for the US, as shown by the experiences of Iran and Afghanistan.

[Beet]

True, but why would you oppose communism as a form of government but not theocracy?

All forms of government, including Democracies, have traits about them which make them open for abuse and repression.  The type of controls each specific nation makes within their laws dictate how easily the leaders can abuse their power as well as limit the power of the people to force change.  Even dictatorships can be more free and open than puppet democracies.  To oppose a type of government in general is merely a sign of ignorance and intollerance. 

As you see I deleted my post and replaced it.

But the problem with ideological governments is that they have a tendency towards certain types of abuse and repression as a function of their ideologies. For example, Hong Kong is run by the "communist party" but only in a nominal sense-- the leaders there are not ideological, clearly. In this case I can see your argument.

However, in a truly ideological government, such as Khomeini's Iran, Taliban Afghanistan, or the de facto-independent tribal regions of Pakistan, the issue is not merely the form of government and the manner through which decisions are reached but the preexisting values that guide those actions. Those values necessarily lead to repression and violence against the US, or support for those who intend to do violence against the secular world. And unless you believe that any kind of repression is legitimate, then one must oppose those governments.

[Beet]

However, in a truly ideological government, such as Khomeini's Iran, Taliban Afghanistan, or the de facto-independent tribal regions of Pakistan, the issue is not merely the form of government and the manner through which decisions are reached but the preexisting values that guide those actions. Those values necessarily lead to repression and violence against the US, or support for those who intend to do violence against the secular world. And unless you believe that any kind of repression is legitimate, then one must oppose those governments.

"And unless you believe that any kind of repression is legitimate, then one must oppose those individual governments."

You forgot a word.

Again, at the sake of repeating myself, it's not the government type that is bad, but rather the individual leaders and the failure of the citizens to do anything about it that make a nation bad.

I'm not saying government types are bad, I'm saying ideological governments are bad, for ideology usually leads them into repression, and yes, even democratic ideology, which was undoutably one of the main reasons for our current misadventure in Iraq. While non-ideological governments often commit abuses, their abuses will be limited to that which is necessary for them to survive. Ideological governments on the other hand, will always go out of the way to commit abuses, as long as there are people in the world who do not accept their ideology-- and there always are. That is my problem with ideological governments. Note it has nothing to do with type of government.