Do you think the U.S. and other nations should have joined the League of Nations with no restrictions to its obligations under Article 10?

Its hard for me to comprehend this. Could someone help?

This should help you understand the League and the issues about America's involvement. Also consult your text materials.

http://history.state.gov/milestones/1914-1920/league

This may also help, although it doesn't go into much detail:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080929211632AAYCyLi

I would not discount << Wilson and Lodge’s personal dislike of each other poisoned any hopes for a compromise, and ...>> first link quote.

Here is a link that is easy reading that explores the family, political, and personal grievances in that feud between the two. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/wilson/peopleevents/p_lodge.html
It is almost like "divorce court" footage on tV

To answer this question, it's important to understand the context of the League of Nations and Article 10.

The League of Nations was established in 1920 as an international organization aimed at promoting peace and resolving conflicts through diplomacy. Article 10 of the League's Covenant stated that member nations must respect and preserve the territorial integrity and political independence of other member nations, and collectively take action if any aggression occurred. However, this obligation did not come with any specified restrictions or limitations.

Opinions on whether the U.S. and other nations should have joined the League of Nations with no restrictions to Article 10 obligations can vary. Some arguments in favor of unrestricted obligations under Article 10 include:

1. Collective Security: Supporters argue that unrestricted obligations would have effectively deterred aggression from any member nation, as any attack on one member would trigger a collective response from others. This would have promoted stability and deterred conflicts.

2. Strength in Numbers: Joining the League without restrictions would have increased its effectiveness by allowing all members to fully commit to its principles and obligations. This unity might have made the organization more credible and influential in resolving disputes worldwide.

On the other hand, there are arguments against joining the League of Nations without restrictions to Article 10 obligations:

1. National Sovereignty: Opponents argue that unrestricted obligations would potentially infringe on a nation's sovereignty and the ability to act in its own best interest. Member nations might be dragged into conflicts that do not directly concern them or align with their interests.

2. Inflexibility: Unrestricted obligations might create a rigid framework that limits a nation's ability to respond to specific situations independently. This lack of flexibility could hinder diplomatic negotiations, as decisions must be made collectively rather than with nuanced approaches.

Ultimately, whether joining the League of Nations without restrictions to Article 10 obligations would have been beneficial or not largely depends on individual perspectives and opinions.