Interventionist or isolationist?I believe there is no clear position on whether we should be interventionist or isolationist. It all depends on the circumstances. Almost every conflict the United States has been involved in has been about the economy and what our country stands to gain. We have been one of the world's greatest powers since the early 1900s, primarily due to colonization and domination of the global economy. During the First World War we should have maintained our isolationist policy if possible. The main reason we got involved was that the new expansionist mood of the Axis powers threatened the global empire we were apparently building. And the war interfered with our thriving trading system with other countries. As Henry Ford said: “Do you want to know the cause of the war? It’s capitalism, greed, the dirty hunger for dollars.” And, ultimately, I don't think we could have stayed out of the war if we wanted to. The world at the time was a tangle of alliances which meant that a local conflict could spark a massive war. The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand and his wife was the spark that ignited this painting. Even after the start of World War I, the United States was content to sell food and munitions to countries involved in the conflict. It was only when Germany began attacking ships carrying these goods to Europe that the United States began to get angry. They had attempted to pursue a policy of neutrality and semi-isolationism, but now find themselves drawn into a conflict in which they had nothing to do. The United States had nothing to gain but money from trade. As a result, we have paid the price of many lives for little to no gain. I have a different view on World War II, however. Once the war started, it should have been interventionist to the end, from an economic and patriotic point of view. The desire to avoid "foreign entanglements" of all kinds had been an American foreign policy for over a century. Very real “geographic isolation” allowed the United States to “fill the empty lands of North America, free from the threat of foreign conflict.” President Roosevelt wanted to avoid war, especially since it was contrary to U.S. policy that most, if not all, Americans agreed with. And as I said, another factor led to President Roosevelt's neutrality decision... in the middle. The next day, Roosevelt said the attack “gave us an opportunity.” Congress had approved the declaration of war with a single dissenting vote. If we hadn't gone to war, a lot of things would have happened. First, the Great Depression would probably have continued because it was jobs and war revenue that got us out of the Depression. Second, the Nazis could have continued. their death camps and many millions more people are believed to have died. Third, we would never have had our atomic revenge on the Japanese. However, it was these same atomic weapons that fueled the Cold War and left people living in fear for the next few years. decades. So, as you can see, there are pros and cons to being an isolationist or an interventionist. We can do a lot of good in the world by intervening, but it often costs us dearly. And our country can be considered a great protector or a greater destroyer...