"I'm sorry to burst your bubble, it's not my speculation, it is fact, and moreover, it is the way history is taught at universities in Europe... Wake up and smell the coffee."

This may have been one of the reasons, but it certainly wasn't the only reason like you seem to claim.

And how the hell would I know what European Universities teach?

If they mention that as the only reason, then they are obviously negating some points.

DarKEN

__________________
Walk down the right back alley in Sin City and you can find anything...

Show your kids you love them by buying them the No. 7 brand.

Look say for a second we were to set out on some engagement that involved some risk to ourselves. Would you agree that before the outset we would make every attempt to prepare the ground, confuse our enemy, seek the latest intel, strengthen our hand in any way possible. Would you regard this as wise or weak?

If we brought into play a situation where we could ally our enemies with our own interests whether they were aware of in favour of this or not this could be regarded not only very cunning in our part but also rather better than a messy brawl with them. Our maybe the brawl is the whole point.

To set out with nothing more than this Foghorn Leghorn approach of just going in and do your best is not really a strategy.

Not if such a delay could realistically result in the state/group obtaining nuclear weapons technology.

The threat of a brawl is the point. If despots know we will carry out our threats, they will be far less likely to confront us. Iraq and Afghanistan have already stengthend our position when dealing with nations like Iran. They know that not only are we capable of following through, we are capable of doing it over UN objections. So they cant hide behind the Un anymore.

The alternatives have not been terribly successful so far. Direct confrontation gets results.

Although it pains me to do this Ive managed to cull some figures for you on the Normandy landings

Sword Beach British 3rd Infantry, 27th Armoured Brigade
30,000 British troops ashore; 700 casualties
DD tanks ashore 21 with 4 losses

Omaha Beach US 1St Army
34,000 American troops ashore; 2400 casualties
DD tanks ashore 2to5 with 27to24 losses

Apart from variations in German defences one reason that has been posited for the large numbers of US casulties in that day was the relative lack of preparation for infantry landings.

The British had prepared various specialised beach clearing tanks that were used reasonably succesfully to clear beach defences. The Americans I understand were not that interested in such notions.

Notwithstanding the incredible courage of those on the ground I would offer that the losses sustained were unacceptable and all for a little preparation.

Now Im going to take a wild guess here but Id say that direct confrontation without actually having a good enough plan on who your going to confront and how you hope to win seem a trifle ill informed.

So what again is the plan.

Had we attacked them preemptively...say, right after they violated the WWI treaty forbidding them to build their military beyond a certain size...do you think our casualties would have been less or more?

Negotiation wastes time and gives despots an opportunity to prepare. Who knows how many lives could have been saved had we attacked them first instead of waiting for them to attack us.