Abstract
This paper defines and examines a wide variety of factors that influence government's decisions to go to war and public opinion about war. The paper reviews a number of literature sources, focusing its study on the following issues: racism, Islamic-phobia (or negative attitudes toward Muslims), religious dogmatism, terrorism, conventional vs. guerrilla war and global war.

Tags:war, racism, Islam, Muslims, Religion, Terrorism

Abstract
This paper examines how Soviet expansionism was reported in the media during the Cold War era. The paper further points out that most of the media coverage reflected the conventional wisdom of these years that the topic wasn't whether Soviet expansion was the policy of the Kremlin, but how that expansion would be pursued. Examining a New York Times articles from 1954 reveals that this was the focus of Times reporters, and their articles reflect the common view that the Soviets were intent upon using proxy wars to expand communism throughout the world.

From the Paper
"An Analysis Soviet expansionism was one of the most discussed and analyzed issues of the Cold War era, but most of the media coverage reflected the conventional wisdom of these years that the topic wasn't whether Soviet expansion was the policy of the Kremlin, but how that expansion would be pursued. Examining New York Times articles from 1954 reveals that this was the focus of Times reporters, and their articles reflect the common view that the Soviets were intent upon using proxy wars to expand communism throughout the world."

Tags:cold, war, articles

Abstract
Humankind conditions its response by creating rules by which it must play the game. It does not matter what the game is. In the case of "just war" doctrine, the game is war. The primary concern of this thesis is to determine the applicability of these "rules" to the types of warfare that may be conducted in the 21st century. To achieve this goal, one must first understand the war convention, so referred to by Walzer in his book, entitled "Just and Unjust Wars, a Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations" (3rd edition). The paper then explores the possible nature of war in the 21st century, with emphasis on applying, where possible, the "just war" doctrine. Finally, it touches briefly upon the problems involved in the revision of war doctrine as discovered at the 1992 Peace Symposium.

From the Paper
"Is there just cause to start a war? This question is larger than it appears. From a pacifist point of view, there are no justifiable reasons to start a war. However, there are those who point to a perceived threat as a viable basis for war. This point of view dictates a pre-emptive strike even if there is no immediate action taken by the group making the threats. The rules of the game become clouded in this instance. "The line between legitimate and illegitimate first strikes is not going to be drawn at the point of imminent attack but at the point of sufficient threat (Walzer 76-78)." The time span between the perception of harm and the harm itself is subject to scrutiny. Saddam Hussein may call for a jihad against the United States, but when does that threat constitute a reasonable cause for war? What are the consequences of ignoring the threat? How much time should pass before we take action? Is it possible to wait too long?"

Tags:fanaticism, Saddam, Hussein, bio-war

Abstract
The paper discusses how the war on terrorism cannot be fought by conventional means but questions whether America should lower its standards of decency to those of the terrorists in the Islamic world. The paper also addresses the problems with using 9/11 as an excuse to export American-style democracy to the rest of the world. The paper reveals the view of some that the war on terrorism is really the war to maintain oil reserves and how many complain that this war is invading American citizens' privacy and civil rights. The paper concludes that terrorism, per se, is unfair exploitation of decency and fairness, but it is un-American to use terrorism to counter terrorism.

From the Paper
"To me, terrorism is achieving an objective by not following the decent rules of human behavior and attempting to achieve political or military ends ruthlessly and with regard to human life. Terrorism, in a sense, may be in the eye of the beholder. If terrorists are people who use force to achieve their ends or cause problems with the establishment, then the Boston Tea Party were terrorists, Paul Revere was a terrorist, the French Resistance during World War II were all terrorists. However, one nation's view of "terrorism" may be another nation's signifying these men as "freedom fighters." This was the case when the state of Israel was in its early formation. Israeli guerillas set explosions in the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. "...a shattering explosion shook Jerusalem, and reverberated at a great distance. The entire southern wing of the King David Hotel... was totally destroyed... it was officially announced that 91 people had been killed in the explosion: 28 Britons, 41 Arabs, 17 Jews and 5 others" (Anon 1). The British saw this as an act of terrorism- going against the so-called "rules of war." The Israelis saw the Irgun soldiers as patriots."

Tags:9/11, democracy, Islam, Guantanamo, Bay

Abstract
This paper examines transnational crime which has increased since the end of the Cold War fifteen years ago, primarily because the collapse of the Soviet empire provided vast new opportunities for international criminals to traffic more extensively in illegal arms sales and black marketeering. The fall of the Soviet Union and its entire economic and security infrastructure has had many consequences. The paper shows that many Russian conventional and nuclear weapons arsenals are no longer secure because the government lacks the funds to provide adequate security staffs, and unemployment is so high that many Russians are engaging in black market activities.

Tags:international, crime, issues

Abstract
The paper discusses how "Bush at War" develops a portrait of the inner workings of the Bush administration, but stresses that the book cannot be accepted at face value and must be interpreted as one side of the story. The paper looks at how Woodward shows there was no easily-identifiable strategy hit upon by the administration; they were forced to develop their own way of interpreting the terrorist attacks and terrorism in general. The paper discusses how the administration then attempted to shape this entity into one that could be attacked with conventional weaponry, tactics and military force.

From the Paper
"Bob Woodward's book Bush at War, just like any piece of journalism, needs to be regarded with a certain level of skepticism. Primarily, this skepticism must be directed toward the sources utilized to create this unique account of the first 100 days following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Of course, Woodward uses the president and his top advisors as the primary sources, since they stand as the only individuals present during the important decision-making process of the war in Afghanistan. Official minutes of their meetings are also utilized. So, although these were the only legitimate sources available, it should not be anticipated that they would provide a particularly balanced portrait of the president or his administration."

Tags:terrorism, Afghanistan, strategy, weapons, insurgents, democracy

Abstract
Concessions to slaveowners in an effort to hold the Union together compromised the ideals of individual freedom set forth in the Declaration of Independence to result in an American society less free than the founders had envisioned. This paper traces the relationship of ideas in the Declaration and Constitution to the realities of slavery from 1776 through the Constitutional Convention, the Lincoln administration and the end of the Civil War.

Abstract
In this article, the writer notes that following the end of the Second World War there was an acute need to rethink the legal framework in which the atrocities similar to the ones that marked the tragic context of the first and second world conflagrations could be punished more severely. In this sense, there were a series of conventions and legally binding acts which tried to create a bonding obligation for the signing states to refrain from violent acts against civilians and other participants to wars. Nonetheless, the writer points out that taking into account the latest developments in the war in Iraq, there are serious doubts over the degree in which the legal system available to date is able to offer a comprehensive framework of protection.

From the Paper
"Therefore, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 represent a legal system consisting of four acts: They are: the Convention for the amelioration of the condition of the wounded and sick in armed forces in the field; the Convention for the amelioration of the condition of wounded, sick and shipwrecked members of armed forces at sea; the Convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war; the Convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war.
"Despite the obvious complexity of the system set in place and of the areas under discussion, the historical context showed that the Conventions lacked a comprehensive and efficient approach of the legal matters on which they focused. In this sense, there was no clear distinction between the civil war and the liberation war. Thus, taking into account the fact that most conflicts following the Second World War were intra state wars, it was hard to determine whether the conventions would be applicable in cases such as the Korean War, the Vietnam experience, or even the Arab Israeli conflict."

Tags:military, principles, authority, Geneva, Conventions

Abstract
This paper explains the concept of a just war and examines the theoretical aspect and historical aspect of the just war theory. The paper explains that the theoretical aspect is concerned with ethically justifying the engagement of war as well as the forms of warfare and that the historical aspect is concerned with the historical body of rules or mutual agreements existing in various wars across the ages. The paper also explains that the idea of a just war has historical precedent and can be seen as far back as biblical times and extends down through the Middle Ages and the time of Shakespeare.

From the Paper
"The idea of a "just war" is a conundrum. How can one group of people consider their actions "right" or "just" to apply military force against a another group. When can one group's actions, which will create devastation, economic difficulty, and death to thousands of people, be considered "right?" In a civilized society, the concept of a "just war" has become the centerpiece of many discussions, and has acted as a gate keeper, restraining hawkish tendencies of nations who pride themselves in freedom, and individual liberty. In order for a nation to engage in an activity which creates harm for another group, there must be a justifiable reason."

Tags:enemies, differ, religious, beliefs, race, language, conventions, common, ground, mutual, understanding

Abstract
This paper explains that, even with the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the leaders of America knew that there was a dividing line between the states that wanted slavery and those that did not. The author points out that the Missouri Compromise or the Compromise of 1820, which was the agreement between the two groups of pro-slavery and anti-slavery leaders, was the rule for governing of slavery in the Western Territories, but, in the long run, it did not solve the issue of slavery. The paper concludes that 360,000 men were dead on the Union side and 260,000 were dead on the Confederate side, but the Union continued.

From the Paper
"All the forces in the country put their own hand into the slavery question and the Supreme Court, which had a majority of Southern justices, tried its own hand at it. The case that it selected for the solution was the Dred Scott case. He was the slave of a US army doctor and was shifted to the free state of Illinois and the Territory of Wisconsin. Wisconsin was a free area under the Missouri Compromise. The Supreme Court gave a proslavery decision and against the effort of Dred Scott to seek freedom. It said that blacks did not have the rights to be citizens of United States and due to that reason; the case should not have come into the Supreme Court."

Tags:north, south, dred-scott, missouri-compromise, secession