>>119
It's obvious you didn't understand my argument, you only think it is incoherent because you cannot comprehend anything more sophisticated than whatever day to day activities you undertake. You think in terms of absolutes, pre-emptive strikes are 0% useful, there are 0 situations in which one would be useful, they offer 0 advantage, they always result in allies leaving, war is always wrong. You confuse the models in which you use to simplify reality so that it can be understood with reality itself, you fail to realize the distinction between tactics and strategy is arbitrary, the "element of surprise" can occur on a large scale, in the situation I described there was a window of opportunity in which competitors in filling the power vacuum were unaware of the situation, in this situation the timescale of preparation and execution and it's benefits would assure victory. The attack on pearl harbor neglected to take into account the time it would take for Japan to secure every strategic point from New Zealand to India and the ease in which the US could replace it's lost navy even if they took out the carriers.
Lastly you obviously have some emotional issues, you seem to think that I am a conservative, I don't really care about gay marriage and abortion. I am just a realpolitik pragmatist with infallible logic stating the most feasible routes of achieving various goals, that's all. I could probably conjur up a plan to achieve some anarchist utopia if you wanted.