Was America's entrance into WWI justified?

[Bo]

Yes. Germany's pursuit of unrestricted submarine warfare threatened American lives, commerce, and interests.

[Bo]

Wait a sec.  You talk about how the Central Powers were abhorrent regimes, then you call on us to get into the war to save Tsarist Russia?

Not Tsarist Russia; save Russia from Bolshevism.  We could have helped stabilize and maintain a more democratic regime; given Kerensky time to create a new, more liberal Russia.

What makes you so sure that the Bolsheviks would not have come to power later in Russia if the U.S. entered WWI?

[Bo]

Wait a sec.  You talk about how the Central Powers were abhorrent regimes, then you call on us to get into the war to save Tsarist Russia?

Not Tsarist Russia; save Russia from Bolshevism.  We could have helped stabilize and maintain a more democratic regime; given Kerensky time to create a new, more liberal Russia.

The US did occupy Murmansk  and Arkhangelsk in Russia in 1919.

Yes, but the amount of troops that the U.S. sent to Russia (13,000 I believe) was way too small to topple the Bolshevik regime.

[Bo]

No.  Had we remained completely neutral (no aid to the Entente) there would be no Lusitania, no Zimmerman Telegram, and more importantly, no Hitler or World War II (as we know it).  The outcome of World War I led directly to World War II.  It's interesting, it's like a historical domino-effect.  World War I led to World War II, which led to the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, and eventually Iraq and Afghanistan.  And what caused this all was our intervention.

Even if American civilians would have been trading with Britain and France (and with the Central Powers at the same time), I think Germany would have still pursued unrestricted submarine warfare against American ships.

[Bo]

No.  Had we remained completely neutral (no aid to the Entente) there would be no Lusitania, no Zimmerman Telegram, and more importantly, no Hitler or World War II (as we know it).  The outcome of World War I led directly to World War II.  It's interesting, it's like a historical domino-effect.  World War I led to World War II, which led to the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, and eventually Iraq and Afghanistan.  And what caused this all was our intervention.

Even if American civilians would have been trading with Britain and France (and with the Central Powers at the same time), I think Germany would have still pursued unrestricted submarine warfare against American ships.

The British mined international waters in 1914, which as far as interference with America's rights a neutral nations goes was the first casus belli that the US had in the Great War, but we chose not to go to war with the United Kingdom over the matter.  We weren't a signatory to the Treaty of London that guaranteed Belgian neutrality.

It was quite hypocritical for us to be upset about German actions that could cost American lives and trade, when we did nothing about the earlier British actions.

At least the British actions didn't cost American lives like the German actions did. Also, wasn't the U.S. mining in international waters as well during this time? If that's the case, then it is understandable by the U.S. didn't criticize Britain for doing the same thing.