The US did join when Wilson signed the treaty, but the Senate withdrew the US from the League when it failed to ratify it.
history.acusd.edu
And what's interesting is that the reason they didn't ratify it was because most of them were isolationists, not internationalists. They didn't believe in "meddling" in the affairs of other continents, being content to hide behind both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.
But it was just that attitude that lead the US into WWI, when US commerce was threatened and we became targets, despite our neutrality. And in a similar manner, we didn't act to stem the rise of Hitler and Imperial Japan, but eventually we became involved and were required to suffer tremendous losses due to our isolationism.
So, ironically, if folks like Chalmers and yourself, were in charge of foreign policy, it's quite likely the the US wouldn't be a member of the UN either.
The UN was created to provide some political means of solving national problems and avoiding war. But it's a hollow organization, and some would state, corrupt. It passes resolutions, but has no means to back them. Yet, it expects the US, being the wealthiest nation, to pick up the majority of the tab.
It must truly pain you to be so ideologically conflicted... You advocate the US backing off, and letting the UN take over. But if the US has no business meddling in the affairs of foreign states, what right does the UN have?
Hawk |
