WWII was about money, too. The Japanese were trying to take advantage of the problems in Europe to "acquire" the French, British and Dutch colonies in southeast Asia. And the Phillipines. The US resisted it.

The process of America going to war against Germany isn't well understood sometimes. The US did not just decide Hitler was a bad guy and go after him.

The Japanese attacked the US Navy at Pearl Harbor in an effort to slow America's defense of those possessions. They wanted to consolidate control over the colonies and then fight a defensive war while using the resources, oil and rubber, for instance.

The US and Japan declared war upon each other. Germany had a treaty with Japan (Axis) calling for each to declare war upon anyone who attacked them. Hitler was offered a way out of that treaty through the fact that Japan technically was not "attacked". He decided after a little thought that the spirit of the Axis was to go to war against people at war with a member.

AND, Hitler desperately wanted Japan to open a second front against the Russians. Had that happened, and Russia diverted resources to the east, the outcome in Europe might have been different. The Germans came very close to taking Moscow and Stalingrad, might have been able to "winter over" had they done so.

But the US didn't declare war on Germany until AFTER Germany declared war on the US. If Germany had not declared war against the US as the result of Pearl Harbor, it might have taken the US some time to find a way to enter the European war.

"but still: do we intend to prop up a regime whose primary constituency is the United States?

Think "Afghanistan".

Haven't we done that before, and do we remember what happened?

Think "Vietnam".

Are we going to be the regime? Are we prepared to learn from the British and French experiences following that course? Do we really understand what that means?

I don't think so. If one doesn't understand history one is bound to repeat it. Etc.

Arf