Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Bits and Pieces - August 24, 2010

It's disturbing that the Smithsonian is slanting its science to the desires of its large contributors.

A Shakespeare journal and a medieval journal decide to take peer review online.

Making it easy to figure out whom to vote for.

You really wanted to hear more about that non-attack on Iran, didn't you?
Tony Karon asks three good questions:
1. Does the U.S. have a right to launch wars of aggression without provocation, in defiance of international law and an international consensus, simply on the basis of its own suspicions about another country's future intentions?

2. Even if Iran were to acquire the means to build a nuclear weapon, would that be a legitimate or prudent reason for launching a war?

3. Is Iran actually developing nuclear weapons?
M. J. Rosenberg makes some similar points.

Gary Hart points out that it's Congress that declares war, and bombing Iran would be war.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

'...bombing Iran would be war.'

Of course, so would invading Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, Grenada, North Korea, bombing Serbia, Laos, North Vietnam or overthrowing (or attempting to) various governments. I make no moral judgment on any of these actions but I'm just saying if we figured out a way to do these and figured out how to avoid way, I see no reason why bombing Iran would be different.