> I want to briefly respond to your comments with two thoughts.
>
> While my examples are extreme the main thought is this: I have not seen any example of force really solving a disagreement. It is more likely to just escalate it. WWII may have brought peace but it was with a horrible cost. I have great trouble supporting any violent action for most any cause and I pray that I never have to make an awful choice like the people in the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania.
>
> Secondly these acts were done for some reason. We may not understand them, we may not ever know what they were but someone somewhere feels they have a valid complaint against the West. If we respond with more violence they or someone connected to them will feel they have another valid complaint and so the cycle will continue.


I don't see any cycle here, depending on the force of the United States' response. First of all, no one is doing anything right now on behalf of anyone else. Once one of the parties is gone, it will stop; no one's going to jump in on the terrorists' behalf after they're wiped out because our show of force will be so big.

The more fitting analogy is of a guy getting stung by bees from a beehive. First he swats the first bee, then another one comes and he swats it; finally, he destroys the hive. Game over.