A person who is very good at math and the sciences can be very stupid
when it comes to opinions concerning politics and human affairs.

One can have a great sense of numbers, and very good short term
memory, and an ability to visualize objects and relationships---yet
none of these skills
would help that person to answer the following question:

"What should the US Military do if Iran tests an atomic bomb and
threatens to use it against Israel?"

A person might be a persuasive orator and yet have dumb opinions.

Some very smart pacifist types in England advocated, in the 30's, that
the British disarm and "let the world do the worst".  Thank goodness
they did not heed that advice---although they did not rearm nearly
fast enough.

After the war the Labour party platform was rightfully described as a
surrender document.

Now I don't know if these people were smart only in the math and in
the visuo spatial sense.  Probably not.  They were smart in oratory,
knowing what to tell people to get elected.  But they sure were stupid
when it came to politics.

Einsteins writings about world affairs shows the same pacifist
simplistic and wrong type opinions.

There's a type of smarts most liberals do not have nowadays.  That is
a hard headed realism unaffected by wishful thinking.  This type of
intelligence can be got by reading history uninfluenced by some
particular dogma.

A good example of someone who has that type of intelligence is John
McCain.  A good example of someone who was bit deficient in that area
was Eugene McCarthy. (Obama and Hillary probably are OK in this area
and will be pragmatists.)

On May 5, 5:35�pm, Rushtown <Rusht... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:





A person who is very good at math and the sciences can be very stupid
when it comes to opinions concerning politics and human affairs.

One can have a great sense of numbers, and very good short term
memory, and an ability to visualize objects and relationships---yet
none of these skills
would help that person to answer the following question:

"What should the US Military do if Iran tests an atomic bomb and
threatens to use it against Israel?"

A person might be a persuasive orator and yet have dumb opinions.

Some very smart pacifist types in England advocated, in the 30's, that
the British disarm and "let the world do the worst". �Thank goodness
they did not heed that advice---although they did not rearm nearly
fast enough.

After the war the Labour party platform was rightfully described as a
surrender document.

Now I don't know if these people were smart only in the math and in
the visuo spatial sense. �Probably not. �They were smart in oratory,
knowing what to tell people to get elected. �But they sure were stupid
when it came to politics.

Einsteins writings about world affairs shows the same pacifist
simplistic and wrong type opinions.

There's a type of smarts most liberals do not have nowadays. �That is
a hard headed realism unaffected by wishful thinking. �This type of
intelligence can be got by reading history uninfluenced by some
particular dogma.

A good example of someone who has that type of intelligence is John
McCain. �A good example of someone who was bit deficient in that area
was Eugene McCarthy. (Obama and Hillary probably are OK in this area
and will be pragmatists.)

The sooner a war is fought the smaller it will be.

Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On May 5, 6:42�pm, mitch.nicolas.raem... at (no spam) gmail.com wrote:





On May 5, 5:35�pm, Rushtown <Rusht... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:

A person who is very good at math and the sciences can be very stupid
when it comes to opinions concerning politics and human affairs.

One can have a great sense of numbers, and very good short term
memory, and an ability to visualize objects and relationships---yet
none of these skills
would help that person to answer the following question:

"What should the US Military do if Iran tests an atomic bomb and
threatens to use it against Israel?"

A person might be a persuasive orator and yet have dumb opinions.

Some very smart pacifist types in England advocated, in the 30's, that
the British disarm and "let the world do the worst". �Thank goodness
they did not heed that advice---although they did not rearm nearly
fast enough.

After the war the Labour party platform was rightfully described as a
surrender document.

Now I don't know if these people were smart only in the math and in
the visuo spatial sense. �Probably not. �They were smart in oratory,
knowing what to tell people to get elected. �But they sure were stupid
when it came to politics.

Einsteins writings about world affairs shows the same pacifist
simplistic and wrong type opinions.

There's a type of smarts most liberals do not have nowadays. �That is
a hard headed realism unaffected by wishful thinking. �This type of
intelligence can be got by reading history uninfluenced by some
particular dogma.

A good example of someone who has that type of intelligence is John
McCain. �A good example of someone who was bit deficient in that area
was Eugene McCarthy. (Obama and Hillary probably are OK in this area
and will be pragmatists.)

The sooner a war is fought the smaller it will be.

Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well I agree with that.  Knocking out Iran's nukes before a test is
the correct and easy answer--to a question I did not ask.

After they test a bomb it will take a wise politician to figure out
the right response.  The wrong response will mean an atom bomb dropped
on Tel Aviv.

We could try M.A.D. on the Iranians, but that is a policy to be used
against a rational opponent.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

A person who is very good at math and the sciences can be very stupid
when it comes to opinions concerning politics and human affairs.

One can have a great sense of numbers, and very good short term
memory, and an ability to visualize objects and relationships---yet
none of these skills
would help that person to answer the following question:

"What should the US Military do if Iran tests an atomic bomb and
threatens to use it against Israel?"

Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
Rushtown wrote:

A person who is very good at math and the sciences can be very stupid
when it comes to opinions concerning politics and human affairs.

One can have a great sense of numbers, and very good short term
memory, and an ability to visualize objects and relationships---yet
none of these skills
would help that person to answer the following question:

"What should the US Military do if Iran tests an atomic bomb and
threatens to use it against Israel?"

That all depends on the circumstances. If that situation arose today,
there's not much we could do. Our military is stretched too thin to deal
with the Taliban and a nut job Islamic cleric at the same time.

Given 5 or 10 years after we are out of Iraq, we might be able to build
up to meet the challenge. But not now.

Keep in mind that, if Iran actually tests one weapon, they probably
would probably have a handful of others mounted on missiles, ready to
fire within a few minutes.

Fortunately, it appears (thanks to the latest intelligence data) that
Iran has respond to international pressures and ceased weapons work.
That's the sign of a rational player. One with whom we (or better yet,
the international community) can negotiate with. We need to keep the
pressure on them to open their peaceful nuclear program to inspection
and reward good behavior. But in order to do that, we need leadership
that is capable of talking to them without coming off like a moron.

Persia, today that means Iran, has a different worldview from
yours. You're the one coming off like a moron at the moment.
Until and unless you can verify that Iran has ceased weapons
work the only safe assumption is that they have not.

To test your theory, negotiate first with Jeremiah Wright.
He thinks he's not a racist. Iran's rationality is much like
Wright's. Explain to Wright how much better off the Black Man
is in the US today than his peers are in the lands that spawned
them both.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Rushtown wrote:

A person who is very good at math and the sciences can be very stupid
when it comes to opinions concerning politics and human affairs.

One can have a great sense of numbers, and very good short term
memory, and an ability to visualize objects and relationships---yet
none of these skills
would help that person to answer the following question:

"What should the US Military do if Iran tests an atomic bomb and
threatens to use it against Israel?"


That all depends on the circumstances. If that situation arose today,
there's not much we could do. Our military is stretched too thin to deal
with the Taliban and a nut job Islamic cleric at the same time.

Given 5 or 10 years after we are out of Iraq, we might be able to build
up to meet the challenge. But not now.

Keep in mind that, if Iran actually tests one weapon, they probably
would probably have a handful of others mounted on missiles, ready to
fire within a few minutes.

Fortunately, it appears (thanks to the latest intelligence data) that
Iran has respond to international pressures and ceased weapons work.
That's the sign of a rational player. One with whom we (or better yet,
the international community) can negotiate with. We need to keep the
pressure on them to open their peaceful nuclear program to inspection
and reward good behavior. But in order to do that, we need leadership
that is capable of talking to them without coming off like a moron.

mitch.nicolas.raemsch at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9555acdc-70f7-4084-9bcd-307c3b0972f2 at (no spam) f24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On May 5, 5:35 pm, Rushtown <Rusht... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:


The sooner a war is fought the smaller it will be.

Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

Like WWI, the war to end all wars?

Alan White

mitch.nicolas.raem... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message

news:9555acdc-70f7-4084-9bcd-307c3b0972f2 at (no spam) f24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On May 5, 5:35 pm, Rushtown <Rusht... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:

The sooner a war is fought the smaller it will be.

Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

Like WWI, the war to end all wars?

Alan White

-----------------www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com- *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------

"Rushtown" <Rusht... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote in message

news:8cdc7f8d-6499-4e72-8fb5-218cfc5a6531 at (no spam) l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...


After the war the Labour party platform was rightfully described as a
surrender document.

We need to know which Labour party platform you are talking
about. � General elections were held in 1935, years before the
war, and 1945, between VE Day and VJ Day, i.e. while the war
was still going on, albeit not in Europe. �The 1935 �manifesto
opposed arms expenditure (but so did Tory Chancellor/PM
Chamberlain up to 1937.)


--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Some very smart pacifist types in England advocated, in the 30's, that
the British disarm and "let the world do the worst". Thank goodness
they did not heed that advice---although they did not rearm nearly
fast enough.

After the war the Labour party platform was rightfully described as a
surrender document.

Now I don't know if these people were smart only in the math and in
the visuo spatial sense. Probably not. They were smart in oratory,
knowing what to tell people to get elected. But they sure were stupid
when it came to politics.

On May 6, 12:56�pm, "Don Phillipson" <e... at (no spam) SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:

"Rushtown" <Rusht... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote in message

news:8cdc7f8d-6499-4e72-8fb5-218cfc5a6531 at (no spam) l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...


After the war the Labour party platform was rightfully described as a
surrender document.

We need to know which Labour party platform you are talking
about. � General elections were held in 1935, years before the
war, and 1945, between VE Day and VJ Day, i.e. while the war
was still going on, albeit not in Europe. �The 1935 �manifesto
opposed arms expenditure (but so did Tory Chancellor/PM
Chamberlain up to 1937.)



--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)


I don't know exactly, I read it somewhere. I will do the research if
necessary. Here is one site refering to this http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~epf/1998/wilkinson.html.

I am sure you know that there were at least some members of the Labour
party who advocated disarmament despite Hitler and also advocated
disarmament during the cold war.

It would illustrate my point even if there were only a few such
people. They were smart, high IQ types, who probably got degrees from
the best universities. But they had opinions that were very clearly
wrong, and actually nonsensical.

The same person can be very intelligent in one area and not in
another.

Example, there was a Bankruptcy Court Trustee who mentioned to me how
Hispanic people seemed to get less consideration from the Court and
other trustees. I mentioned how that was not fair, and I also
mentioned one particularly biased judge. This lady immediately
changed from being reasonable and fair minded into a raving anti-
semite. It was a bit strange.

Rushtown wrote:
On May 6, 12:56�pm, "Don Phillipson" <e... at (no spam) SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:

"Rushtown" <Rusht... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote in message

news:8cdc7f8d-6499-4e72-8fb5-218cfc5a6531 at (no spam) l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com....

After the war the Labour party platform was rightfully described as a
surrender document.

We need to know which Labour party platform you are talking
about. � General elections were held in 1935, years before the
war, and 1945, between VE Day and VJ Day, i.e. while the war
was still going on, albeit not in Europe. �The 1935 �manifesto
opposed arms expenditure (but so did Tory Chancellor/PM
Chamberlain up to 1937.)

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

I don't know exactly, I read it somewhere.  I will do the research if
necessary.  Here is one site refering to thishttp://userwww.sfsu.edu/~epf/1998/wilkinson.html.

I am sure you know that there were at least some members of the Labour
party who advocated disarmament despite Hitler and also advocated
disarmament during the cold war.

It would illustrate my point even if there were only a few such
people.  They were smart, high IQ types, who probably got degrees from
the best universities.  But they had opinions that were very clearly
wrong, and actually nonsensical.

You think all the stupid Brits thought otherwise? In that case
which group was smarter?



The same person can be very intelligent in one area and not in
another.

Example, there was a Bankruptcy Court Trustee who mentioned to me how
Hispanic people seemed to get less consideration from the Court and
other trustees.  I mentioned how that was not fair, and I also
mentioned one particularly biased judge.  This lady immediately
changed from being reasonable and fair minded into a raving anti-
semite.  It was a bit strange.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Rushtown wrote:
On May 6, 3:40 pm, foolsrushout <6... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

Rushtown wrote:

On May 6, 12:56�pm, "Don Phillipson" <e... at (no spam) SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:

"Rushtown" <Rusht... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote in message

news:8cdc7f8d-6499-4e72-8fb5-218cfc5a6531 at (no spam) l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com....

After the war the Labour party platform was rightfully described as a
surrender document.

We need to know which Labour party platform you are talking
about. � General elections were held in 1935, years before the
war, and 1945, between VE Day and VJ Day, i.e. while the war
was still going on, albeit not in Europe. �The 1935 �manifesto
opposed arms expenditure (but so did Tory Chancellor/PM
Chamberlain up to 1937.)

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

I don't know exactly, I read it somewhere.  I will do the research if
necessary.  Here is one site refering to thishttp://userwww.sfsu.edu/~epf/1998/wilkinson.html.

I am sure you know that there were at least some members of the Labour
party who advocated disarmament despite Hitler and also advocated
disarmament during the cold war.

It would illustrate my point even if there were only a few such
people.  They were smart, high IQ types, who probably got degrees from
the best universities.  But they had opinions that were very clearly
wrong, and actually nonsensical.

You think all the stupid Brits thought otherwise? In that case
which group was smarter?

The same person can be very intelligent in one area and not in
another.

Example, there was a Bankruptcy Court Trustee who mentioned to me how
Hispanic people seemed to get less consideration from the Court and
other trustees.  I mentioned how that was not fair, and I also
mentioned one particularly biased judge.  This lady immediately
changed from being reasonable and fair minded into a raving anti-
semite.  It was a bit strange.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The only example of a whole group of smart people acting stupid were
the Germans in World War II

I seriously doubt that was the only example. But you still
haven't answered the question which remains intact above. I'm
surprised at your anti-Germanic hatred at this late date.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -