>Propositions generally take one of two forms: either (a) they can be
verified
>or falsified by empirical evidence and proofs, proven or disproven by
actual
>data --either historical or contemporary -- by sound or faulty logic, or
(b)
>they are articles of faith which can not be either verified or falsified.
I don't think my view of the US has much to do with faith. There's enough empirical evidence of the disastrous and oppressive consequences of American intervention to satisfy most rational human beings.
>Now if the proposition you suggest below -- that America will always
>intervene on the wrong side, and so its intervention must always be opposed
>-- is of type (a), then it seems to me that you must actually deal with the
>examples I provided you which I believe shows it to be false as a
_universal_
>theorem: not only the missed opportunities to squelch the genocide in
Rwanda,
We'll never know, will we?
>but also the support of sanctions against apartheid South Africa.
Actually I always thought that the struggle over here was the basis for the ending of apartheid.
>If it is (b), and America is by definition the "evil empire,'" the "Great
Satan,"
>which must do wrong, then there is no point in discourse and conversation
>over the question, since there is no proof, no evidence which will satisfy
>the true believer that this is a far too simple view of the world. This is
>the type of position that Heartfield, Yoshie and Carroll advocate, and it
is
>like arguing with a fundamentalist.
So call me a fundamentalist. I seem to be in good company.
Russell