Compare the points of view of Wilson, Clemenceau, and Lloyd George at the Paris Peace Conference.

The Paris Peace Conference.. what a disaster. It was intended to resolve post-WWI disputes and settle territories after the war, but only ended in saddling Germany with massive reparations that led to another world war.

Clemenceau was the ambassador from France. Because France and Germany had a long-standing grudge, and because France was so close to Germany and had been invaded during the war, Clemenceau wanted to pin Germany with a very high amount of reparations, remove all their freedoms like raising a large standing army, and occupy the Rhineland, a coal production zone in Germany. This punitive way of going about things was definitely not the best in hindsight.

Lloyd George was the ambassador from Britain. He took a bit more of a lenient approach than France, but nevertheless he exerted considerable pressure to force Germany into many of these crippling reparations, like the vindictive War Guilt Clause that made Germany admit guilt for the entire war.

Wilson was the ambassador from the United States. He didn't want as many reparations as the other two, but he really loved his new idea of the League of Nations, which was a new association of countries that he believed could help prevent another war. Along with his Fourteen Points, which included this LoN idea, he was super excited about self-determination and less concerned about the reparations idea.

i am not 100% positive but i think it is is b. both are non-partisan jobs

i am pretty sure that members of congress have term limits, can be impeached, and are nominated through direct popular vote.