Well, do you blame them sometimes?

Certainly not. But we learned in 1941 that we can isolate ourselves either, though I wish we could.

It could be argued that we were truly never isolationist. FDR did nearly as much as humanly possible to support the Allies, the numerous naval and maritime laws that were passed. Lend Lease act, reflagging 50 US tankers to GB, constructing the Archer, and others.

It would be pretty hard to try and argue that they were really isolationist at all, especially by the time August mentions.

Very true. Part of the problem was that we did try isolationism in the previous World War, and rightfully so. Most of the countries in that one got involved because of treaties promising to help each other.

We don't need to be isolationist, but we also don't need to be interventionist. We try to help when asked, but if we help someone with enemies then those enemies decide we're the bad guy too, and they respond in kind. It's that old Orestes thing: Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Very true. I agree. I wish our nation would approach foreign policy this way. Even though, I still think we need to use our naval and air forces to ensure freedom on navigation and the free flow of goods on the world's waterways. That means global deployment of CSG's and subs. Not sure if that would be considered "interventionist" or just looking out for our own economic security.

There is nothing wrong with protecting your assets or citizens, Russia used that very same argument when they invaded Georgia.

SS, I agree with almost every point you brought up. The danger of that though is how much help, who gets help, to what extent and reason that we put our men and women in harms way. Very tough to decide, does it come down to our own best interest.....

Tribesman: had FDR not been embroiled in his reelection, than I can almost guarantee aid would have been provided a lot sooner.