I think Ed just misunderstands -- I doubt that he is one of those "America, love it or leave it alone" types of pseudopatriots. There is no hate in placing responsibility appropriately. Just as Japan is responsible for starting the war, the U.S. is responsible for responding with a disproportionate (and ethically misdirected) force. The U.S. had its fingers in Asia and the Pacific Islands (Philippines, Hawaii, et cetera) long before Pearl Harbor, so it is at least a bit simplistic to say that the U.S. was truly isolationist simply because it did not send in the military right away in Europe. The U.S. also instigated/escalated war (in Vietnam) based on faulty understanding of events, so it is not as if Japan was guilty of something that the U.S. could and would never do. Think of it this way: if one of your kids picks a fight with the other and the other one responds with a blow that breaks the other's nose, would you only hold the first one culpable for starting it or do you also hold the other one responsible for responding and with excess force? Sure, sometimes a fight may be unavoidable, yet there are appropriate ways of dealing with a threat and there are over-the-top wrong ways of reacting.
What really has me concerned is this: in an article I read about the recent anniversary observance of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the author pointed out the sensible conclusion that the further away we get chronologically from those bombings the more likely we are to use nuclear weapons again. When the resulting damage fades from memory, restraint loosens. And yes, disarmament will work if 1) the leading world powers (US, UK, Russia) show serious intent (i.e. they do not insist that small nations give up much national sovereignty while giving up comparatively little of their own) and 2) it is done via a world body (UN, NATO) that will collectively act against any member that is not in compliance and will not show any favoritism or bias. The U.S. needs to set an example and then the idea of disarmament will be taken seriously more broadly, even by rogue nations. As for the Iran/Israel deal, let us just say that there is a whole lot more complexity to it than simply Iran wanting to remove Israel from the face of the earth via nuclear weapons.