Craig Biggerstaff (quoted by Possum — and how come the permalink syntax is correct on the latter and wrong on the former?) writes:
I have considerable respect for the argument that past US interventions have created ill will abroad. But however we got here, here we are. I have little respect for the argument that we can simply “go, and sin no more” and expect the ill will to dissipate by itself. I have none for the argument that we can simply throw overboard everything or everyone that offends some foreign potentate and not simply whet said potentate’s appetite for further demands.
How about the idea that “we” retaliate thoroughly (but narrowly) for any actual attack on Us — and then “go and sin no more”, not because it might please some thug but because it’s the right thing for America even if it pleases some thug?
Otherwise, it’s only a matter of time until it all happens again: the politicians will piss off someone else, who will find a startling way to kill ten thousand Americans, and the cry will once again go up: “We didn’t want a war, but we’ve got one, so pipe down you appeasers.”
Somehow I’m reminded of the stereotypical petty criminal’s words to the victim-elect who shows a weapon: “Relax, lady, we don’t want no trouble.” No, “we” would much prefer to dictate to the world without resistance or repercussions.