Wrt an engine failure in a twin-jet, the phrase "
Land at nearest suitable airport" implies that operations on a single engine represent a significant increase in risk and therein Mr Boeing / Airbus want you to get it on the ground asap. Or putting it another way, they want you on the ground asap in order to limit your time-exposure to operations on just a single engine.
'Risk' is a normally referenced to statistical probabilities of certain events occurring, wherein for aviation purposes the following are normally assumed:
- Frequent (Up to 1 per 1000)
- Reasonably probable (1/1,000 to 1/100,000) Unlikely to occur frequently but may occur several times during the life of each aeroplane, e.g. Engine Failure.
- Remote (1/100,000 to 1/10,000,000) Unlikely to occur to each aeroplane during its life but may occur several times during the life of the fleet. e.g. Low speed over-run; Failure to achieve NTOFP.
- Extremely remote (1/10,000,000 to 1/1,000,000,000) Unlikely to occur in the life of the fleet but still possible. E.g. High speed over-run; Ditching; Hitting an obstacle in the NTOFP; Double engine failure in twin engine aircraft
Nb. The use of ‘Fleet’ in the above refers to all the aircraft of a particular type, i.e. as produced by the manufacturer (and not to a particular airline’s fleet of that type).
Whilst the above suggests that a double engine failure in a twin-jet has an 'Extremely Remote' probability of occurring,
that does not mean that it can't happen! 
Therein I'll agree with Rainboe
et al and the the old adage that it's much better to be down here wishing you were up there, than up there wishing you were down here.
That said, I would
not promote rushing drills and / or approach briefing & set up / flying, etc, in order to get it on the ground asap, as we all know that rushing exacerbates the level of risk.