Choose one of the following topics and write a 750 word essay.

a. washington and monroe believed the united states should not become involved in european affairs. is it possible to follow the same policy today? why or why not? cite examples of recent news events to support your opinion.

b. the monroe doctrine expressed the idea that new countries should be allowed to develop without interference from stronger nations. in your opinion, does the united states still follow this policy? do you think that such a policy should be followed in the modern world? cite news events and recent historical incidents to support your opinion.
99 points and brainliest for whoever can me !

I'm gonna choose the first prompt, I feel like it's a lot easier to come up with support.

During the early years of our independence as a country, prominent leaders George Washington and James Monroe both argued against becoming involved in foreign affairs. They felt that any international conflict brought with it the chance of war, and because America was so newly founded, we would be destroyed. Instead, they claimed that the country needed to concentrate on getting itself on its feet before they could begin to concern itself with other countries. By choosing to ignore international conflict around them, it eliminated any possible disputes with any other countries. Although this policy of isolationism worked for our founding fathers, following the same policy in today's world is not possible.

I gave you like ~150 words there to start you off, now I'll pass along things you can use as support. I'm not sure what grade you're in so I don't want to write something that sounds too elevated.

The conflict in the Middle East would be vastly different.
Israel would have to become more militant, as they would lose the one counterweight that keeps other regional ambitions in check. Europe would fill the diplomatic void that US leaves behind. France and UK would have to step up for the role of external arbitrator. Saudis and other local oil exporter emirates would probably form alliance against non-oil producing Shiite majority nations. This would result in higher energy price for the world.


Japan and other Asian countries would have to form alliances to counter the Chinese territorial ambitions on their own
In exchange for Japan not re-arming, the United States had guaranteed Japan’s safety. South Korea also relies heavily on the US to keep North Korea in its box. Choosing to isolationist would be a betrayal of our promises, and potentially force Japan into changing its pacifist constitution. Some ASEAN countries may form military alliances, and Australia and New Zealand would likely face an even greater influx of immigrants from Asian countries.

US aid to Africa would cease.
The continent of Africa is heavily reliant on the U.S. for support to combat epidemics and conflict. Many dictators and local strongmen would lose all aid money flowing into their coffers. Local conflicts may increase. China and Europe will fight for influence in the region. Nigeria and South Africa would also compete for continental influence.

Hope that helps! Feel free to let me know if you have any more questions.

hi there!

question - in the 1900s there were two competing views about the environment that often pitted industrialist and conservationist against one another. how were these two competing views demonstrated by the environmental policies of president roosevelt and president taft?

theodore had a quicked tempered personality while president taft was shy and barely noticable.theodore had started a dealing service with big companies which president taft completed.both were into making sure workers were always safe.president taft took the presidency more serious than theodore did.both loved to save nature.

hope this : )