Is it interventionist to not want to deal with unfree countries and to give verbal support for freedom?
The United States would likely not exist but for the interventionism of the Dutch and French. If we think our freedom is connected to others being free, what does that tell us about what our foreign policy should promote?
American isolationists are perfectly content with allowing the rest of the world to be engulfed and to live in tyranny, while thinking we would remain free. Defending this nation with blood will be replaced with sending a "letter of marquis". That ought to show em...send them a letter, then threaten them with one of the two submarines that a President Ron Paul would scale us down to.
Isolationism is suicide.
Verbal support for freedom and liberty is fine, but "deal[ing]" with other countries -- i.e., military or other intervention -- is improper and beyond the scope of the United States government's permissible actions under the Constitution.
The United States would likely not exist but for the interventionism of the Dutch and French. If we think our freedom is connected to others being free, what does that tell us about what our foreign policy should promote?
The French monarchy was bankrupted in its support of the American revolution.
Is the U.S. not a Constitutional republic any more, or do you think the U.S. should voluntarily bankrupt itself in the name of "freedom" (or, rather, the pursuit of the globalist policies of Wilson, Roosevelt, and other early twentieth-century "progressives")?
At this point, I suggest that you give more than a cursory read of John Quincy Adam's July 4, 1821 remarkably prescient (in hindsight, that is) speech to the U.S. House of Representatives, a transcript of which was posted by FReeper KDD here but can also be found here.