What arguments did the interventionist an isolationist have in trying to stop the aggressor japan

During the Second World War, while Germany became a threat with its expansionist and radical ideals, there was another nation not linked to Europe that was slowly but steadily also becoming a threat; the Empire of Japan.

While most of the world´s focus was riveted on Nazi Germany, and how Hitler´s army invaded nation after nation in Europe, the United States maintained a position of isolationism, which had basically been its position since George Washington had become president. The United States and most of its people, believed that the country needed to mind its own business and not intervene in world affairs. And so, for most of the war, the country retained its neutrality, not aiding one side or the other, even if the position was that what Germany was doing, was not correct.

But the whole idea of isolation, and no intervention came crashing down in 1941, with the attack on Pearl Harbor. And it wasn´t that Japan wasn´t showing its dangerous side long before that attack took place. In fact, the war on the Pacific front was even more worrisome to the U.S than the one taking place in Europe. But for several years the U.S was convinced that with peace talks and treaties, they were able to maintain Japan contained.

And then, Pearl Harbor happened and the United States saw, for the very first time in its history, its interests and its very essence threatened. Japan, after talking about peace, had painstakingly planned an attack that wiped out most of the backbone of the American maritime defense and exposed the U.S to the real danger of not stopping Japan. That is when both isolationists and interventionists agreed that Japan had to be stopped and the U.S had to become involved in the war. Because stopping Japan was the main purpose, but this defeat was closely linked to also defeating Germany, one of Japan´s most powerful allies at the moment.

Explanation:

in griswold v. connecticut (1965), the supreme court ruled that a state's ban on the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy.