Will You "armchair" This One for Me, Please? Concerning the U.S. and Iran?

The Iranians are our enemies. Asking them to help us with our problems is like asking a child molester to babysit your kid to keep the kid safe while you are at work. The Iranians are not going to suddenly start supporting their enemy (us) just because we ask really nicely. The only thing negotiations will do is legitimize the Iranian government and give them an opportunity to stall us and deceive us. The morons in the Clinton administration negotiated with North Korea, and the North Koreans exploited those discussions. We made concessions to North Korea in order to stop them from developing nuclear weapons, then they took the concessions and developed nuclear weapons anyway. The morons among the allies in the 1930s negotiated with Hitler, and he exploited those discussions. They made concessions to him if he promised not to invade, then he took the concessions and invaded anyway. At one time we were quite friendly with Iran's previous regime, which was the enemy of Iran's current regime. That does not help us with Iran's current regime. It hurts us with them. There might be a threat of terrorism lurking within Saudi Arabia's borders. But if there is, then the Saudi Arabian government will fight against it, not sponsor it. With Iran the government supports the terrorists.

1. What is the difference between a theoretical physicist and an armchair physicist?

From response of the participants here, it seems that "arm-chair physicist" is a term used by arrogant theoretical physicists to discredit, ridicule and suppress ideas/proposition beneficial to physics, but originating from academia/scholars outside there CLOSED communities.When it is proposed that laws of physics are relevant/beneficial for all disciplines (i.e. medical, art, drama, biology, IT, and so), it suits their ego so they accept it. They claim that they know what would be a beneficial/productive endeavor to move forward with an idea, but they turned down those ideas only because they actually do not know or they are not fully comfortable with other spheres of knowledge.They readily accept the idea, that laws of physics (i.e. knowledge of physics) which are applicable on moon are applicable on earth or anywhere in the Universe. But their arrogance restricts them from accepting that Essence of Knowledge is same for all Subjects, and Physics is just a Language to express that Knowledge.It does not make a difference if you write the Book of Physics in English or Chinese, it is basically same Knowledge in both languages. Similarly, the Knowledge itself can be expressed in the language of Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, Art, Philosophy and so on. And the Knowledge itself do not change whether expressed in the language of any of these subjects.Usually, when two people knowing two different language start interacting, they would definitely struggle to communicate the true and complete intent of the message they are conveying, but slowly they start understanding the terminologies of other's language and communication become easy.But if either of the two are adamant enough to claim that no other language exists(i. e. physics can only be expressed in terms of equations), except the language that they themselves are aware of, then it will never be possible for them to engage in meaningful discussion.Please note that my response/reaction is purely based upon views of respondent to this question, here on Quora. I do not to generalize this as the original intent or attitude of theoretical physicists. In case any of the harsh words used as above, tends to personally hurts somebody, I truly apologize for that.For similiar philosophy refer BIG QUESTIONS

2. Why do armchair generals have a tendency of completely dismissing the importance of logistics in a military? Do they not realize that a military is useless without food/water or ammo?

You answered your own question.To re-affirm your suspicion, yes. They do indeed not realize that militaries are made up of people instead of robots, and that there are no unlimited ammo cheat codes

3. Feedback on a poem I've written?

yea it's good i would fiddle with the last verse it kind of looses it's pattern maybe just chair other than armchair, it could just be me great poem either way!

4. Armchair music critcs! Pick your favorite composition for each respective composer!?

To be easier on me, I eleminated composers from the list who I do not normally listen to/have a favorite piece. Bach - If I had to pick one, I would say Contrapunctus XIV from the Art of Fugue Vivaldi - "Winter" Violin Concerto from the Four Seasons Mozart - Piano Concerto No. 21, or Fantasia in F minor for Organ Beethoven - Symphony 9 or Sonata No. 32 Schumann - Kreisleriana (I may have spelled that wrong) Tchaikovsky - Symphony 1 Shostakovich - String Quartet No. 8 Prokofiev - Symphony No. 5 Scriabin - Sonata No. 5 Rakhmaninov - Piano Concerto No. 2 Brahms - Variations on a theme by Haydn Saint-Saens - "Africa" Fantasy for piano and orchestra Mendelssohn - One of his cantatas, I forgot the name, I will come back later Ravel - Gaspard de la Nuit, or Piano Concerto for Left Hand Solo Debussy - Afternoon for a Faun Rimsky-Korsakov - Schaherezade (I may have misspelled) Mussorgsky - Night on Bald Mountain Scriabin - Again? Other than Sonata 5, I would say Sonata 3 Mahler - So difficult. I can not decide between Symphonies 1, 5, or 8 Medtner - "Night Wind" Sonata Chopin - His Four Ballades (Especially Nos. 1 and 4) Liszt - Sonata in B minor, or his Prelude and Fugue on BACH Bartok - His string quartet in A minor Poulenc - Concerto for Two pianos Wagner - I finally listened to one of his operas: The Flying Dutchman Berlioz - I like his Symphony Fantastique Stravinsky - The Rite of Spring Phew, that was fun.