Do you find zinn’s argument convincing? why or why not?

Yes, Zinn argument is convincig. His explanation is that the US got into the war because England was growing in the market for palling American goods where America invested money in the form of interest loans. For example, JP Morgan and  Company acted as agents for allies in order to be able to borrow a large amount of money and make the profit from the war, and to connect US finances in the interests of the British victory over Germany.

Otherwise, it's hard to believe that America has entered the war because of sinking passenger ships with American and British passengers, so this excusion even more corroborates Zinn's argument.

since most of current immigration into the u.s., both legal and illegal, is coming from latin america. it would be very difficult to imagine or rationalize a country my fellow citizens are trying desperately to flee into, would pose a threat to my prosperity or freedom. since the u.s. has a long history of intervention, but no record of permanent occupation, i would not feel oppression is the main objective.  

the largest free trade nation, along with the largest gdp in the world wanting to expand it's economic policy on us, and including us, could only be positive. the u.s. government has no interest in, or way of simply forcing american culture on us. and has no track record of it. other nations that adopted american social culture, or "americanization" did so voluntarily, mainly through the choice of allowing american businesses and u.s. citizens to come into their nations, as free operatives.