You should read a history book..."Splendid isolationism" was Wilson's stance prior to WWI.I assume your referring to "splendid isolationism" before the start of World War II, which is the problem with your argument. Basicly comparing Germany's threat to conquer the world to Iraq, a country that was a beaten nation after the persian gulf war in the late 90's. Iraq was no world threat, and the U.S. could have made it a parking lot whenever they chose to.
You should read a history book..."Splendid isolationism" was Wilson's stance prior to WWI.
You might want to read one too, since it was actually Britain's stance, not Wilson's.
Splendid isolation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See Woodrow Wilson's Declaration of Neutrality.
If it is stated on Wikipedia it might as well have been burned on tablets by God...I think that's more typically referred to as non-interventionism, as it is done here:
United States non-interventionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(And was used before WWI and WWII as I mentioned earlier)
but they are very similar (is part of the definition of isolationism).
Isolationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Look, I am not arguing against Britain's foreign policy in the 19th Century. However, to try to imply that Wilson not only adopted the "splendid isolation" policy, but was very firm and staunch in his reluctance to involve the US in any way, whatsoever, is undeniable (which is categorically opposite of FDR's meddling in the Japanese sphere of power as well as supporting the Brits well before our overt entry into the European fight.)Apparently if it comes out of your mouth it is....