>>118
You're on 4chan, ad homs and name calling are mandatory,
"faggot".
Your post was horribly flawed and at times incoherent. The first thing I'd expect from a righty cuntservative.
LOJIKS:
IF: You issue an ultimatum;
THEN: Your opponent disregards it SO war begins AND you gain allies or political capital.
ELSE: War is averted.
IF: You do nothing;
THEN: Your opponent continues its actions AND war is inevitable since it will continue to push the envelope until it meets resistance.
IF: You launch a pre-emptive strike;
THEN: War is certain AND you lose allies and political capital.
Ignoring the means, and taking the event of war as desireable to avoid, the ONLY logical choice is the use of diplomacy such as alliances and ultimatums to avoid armed conflict as any other path will unavoidably lead to war.
Now, your argument is that a pre-emptive strike will convey some magical strategic advantage. This is not true. An ultimatum may do nothing, but diplomacy is the ONLY option that will lead to an avoidance of war. Nothing prevents you from being prepared for war while simultaneously giving the ultimatum.
I have already contested your claim, stating correctly that the element of surprise applies only to battle. Catching them with their pants down. While they sleep, while they forage, overwhelming inferior and isolated targets with shock and awe. It has nothing to do with grand strategy. An invasion takes days or weeks: far longer than the element of surprise lasts, which can be scant seconds. You ignored this point in the midst of your laughably contrived logic, so I take that as you conceding defeat on the matter. I accept your apology. Please seek out a church-led ex-gay program to cure yourself of your faggotry.