Abstract
This paper reviews the political career of Napoleon Bonaparte, examines some of his political maneuvers and discusses the debates around his public stance. The paper also explores Napoleon's assessment of his own military career as well as the historical reality of his perception.

From the Paper
"Napoleon Bonaparte's memoirs offer the reader an opportunity to see how a leader perceived reality after his defeat. Although some may have thought of him as a modern hero whose destiny was to bring the benefits of the French Revolution to the entire world, others looked at him and saw a small cowardly man who was responsible for the deaths of hundreds and thousands of soldiers who fought for his unjust cause."

Tags:french, napoleon, revolution, leader, autocrat, ruler, violence, murder

Abstract
This paper describes the heroic efforts of African-Americans in their participation in the fight for freedom in the War for Independence and the Civil War. The paper discusses the issue of slavery and the slave's right or lack thereof to enlist in the military and fight in the wars. The paper contends that, throughout the war, African-Americans continued to prove how valuable they truly were to the military.

From the Paper
"America was founded on the principle of freedom. With this in mind, it comes as little surprise that both the War for Independence and the Civil War have the similarity that they both involved the struggle for freedom. Both wars sought to overcome oppression and both wars encompassed a vision of basic human rights connected with a sense of justice. The other similarity these two wars shared was the heroic efforts of African Americans in their participation in the fight for freedom."

Tags:military, navy, army

Abstract
Many hail Napoleon as one of the greatest men of all time. He was emperor of the French who consolidated and institutionalized many reforms of the French Revolution. One of the greatest military commanders of all time, he conquered the larger part of Europe and did much to modernize the nations he ruled. The paper shows that many consider him a hero to the French people and to all the lands he conquered; bringing forth the same reforms that he had put into effect in France, such as The Napoleonic Code, abolishing serfdom and feudalism and guaranteeing basic rights. Many like to think of Napoleon not as a tyrant to his people but rather a hero. The paper shows, though, that others argue that his iron grip on the people cost them their freedom and his code was more against the people than for them. This paper, therefore, questions whether Napoleon was a tyrant or a hero to his people.

From the Paper
"With all the glory and the splendor that some countries may have experienced, never has history seen how only one man, Napoleon, brought up his country, France, from its most tormented status, to the very pinnacle of its height in just a few years time. He was a military hero who won splendid land-based battles, which allowed him to dominate most of the European continent. He was a man with ambition, great self-control and calculation, a great strategist, a genius; whatever it was, he was simply the best. But, even though how great this person was, something about how he governed France still floats among people's minds. Did he abuse his power? Did Napoleon defeat the purpose of the ideals of the French Revolution? After all of his success in his military campaigns, did he gratify the people's needs regarding their ideals on the French Revolution? Was he a tyrant or a hero? This is one of the many controversies that we have to deal with when studying Napoleon. So the question we must ultimately answer is what kind of a leader was Napoleon Bonaparte?"

Tags:dictator, Waterloo

Abstract
The paper focuses on three events in Napoleon's life; his Egyptian campaign, his involvement in the Peninsular war and his Russian campaign and how they portray Napoleon as a tyrannical dictator who only sought to better himself. The paper argues that despite some temporary glory and beneficial reform for France, the final result of Napoleon's actions name him as an evildoer who failed in his attempt at achieving ultimate power.

From the Paper
"Many perceive Napoleon as an evil dictator who only aimed for personal gain, while others believe he was an excellent leader and accomplished great things for his country of France. Unfortunately, Napoleon's actions during his rise to power and during his reign over the French people are inexcusable and make him a dictator. Napoleon Bonaparte was a tyrannical dictator who sought only to better himself. In fact, Napoleon's dictatorial strategies were modeled by future leaders such as Hitler and Stalin over one hundred years after his death. Napoleon was not the first dictator, and certainly not the cruelest, so why was he idolized in the eyes of future tyrants? Three events in Napoleon's life which force the title of tyrant towards him were his Egyptian campaign, his involvement in the Peninsular War, and his Russian campaign.

Tags:dictator, Peninsular, war, Egypt, Russia, campaign

Abstract
This paper questions whether the anti-war sentiment in the US shortened the Vietnam War. The author contends that protesters succeeded in creating a certain consciousness of war activities within the American public. It is argued that the public had only begun to question the war once it was apparent that it had continued for many years, and that there was some feeling that once committed, America could not withdraw without achieving victory. By analyzing the government's reaction to several anti-war incidences in US, the paper argues the government did not have a deep understanding of the anti-war sentiment. Therefore, the anti-war movement could not have impacted the war to such an extent as to shorten it.

From the Paper
"Vietnam was a situation that seemed to develop slowly in the consciousness of the American public so that much of the country seemed to discover rather suddenly that the nation was enmeshed in a growing war to which there seemed no end. In truth, America had been involved in Vietnam for many years before the issue became the catalyst for social protest and political reprisals in the U.S., and for much of that time the public ignored what was taking place. American involvement actually started in 1954, and at that time it was the French who had been caught in the Vietnamese quagmire (Chafe 259). Full American involvement was contemplated prior to 1954 and rejected, in part because Eisenhower did not believe that a military victory was possible because of the political situation in the region, since the people supported the Viet Minh and identified Ho Chi Minh as the leader of their independence movement (Scheer 274-275)."

Tags:media, foreign, policy, war, military

Abstract
This paper describes the war that existed in the Philippines after the Spain's defeat at the hands of the United States during the Spanish-American War. As a direct result of the war, the Philippines were given to the United States and the Filipino people who originally believed that they were fighting a war for freedom and independence against the Spanish begin to turn against American troops who they view as simply another occupying force. The first part of the paper gives a background to the Filipino insurgency and its main leader, General Emilio Aguinaldo. Aguinaldo's tactics of fighting a guerrilla war against American troops is examined, as well as the effectiveness of these attacks on shocking the American public back home. Feeling betrayed by America who promised the Filipino people freedom after the Spanish were defeated, Aguinaldo embarked on a series of deadly attacks on American soldiers in the Philippines. As a result, American troops responded with equal brutality in their reprisals with very little organized military command holding them back. Diaries are heavily cited in this section of the paper, giving primary sources that tell of how desperate the American soldiers were at the time and how they needed to racially dehumanize the enemy in order to commit such vicious acts of reprisal. The second part of the paper deals with how the American press responded to the war. Numerous newspaper articles and other criticisms of the war are given as examples, some written by the early 20th century's most prominent figures such as Mark Twain. The general point of this section is to show how deeply divided the American public was over the war in the Philippines and how many felt that it would lead to American involvement in other world affairs. A direct parallel is also drawn to the Iraq War in modernity. Finally, the paper ends with a detailed account of how individual soldiers from both sides viewed the conflict. The Filipinos clearly viewed the insurgency as a necessary action in order to preserve their promised independence, while many American soldiers were disgusted and frustrated with why they were in the country to begin with, and often responded violently towards the natives since they began to view them as subhuman. The psychology of warfare is briefly discussed, as soldiers often dehumanize the enemy as a means of justification of their own violent behavior. The end of the insurgency is also discussed, with American troops brutally putting down the rebellion and establishing a tight control over the entire area for decades.

From the Paper
"On April 11th, 1898, the President of the United States William McKinley went to Congress and asked the elected body to declare war on Spain for their role in oppression overseas and to accommodate public opinion that was strongly anti-Spanish due to the sinking of the United States battleship Maine only a few months earlier that was blamed on Spanish agents. Congress eventually sanctioned the war, and the Spanish-American war commenced with several battles over Spanish colonies such as Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines. The war itself was over fairly quickly, as hostilities were ended only a few months after war was officially declared. The involvement in the former Spanish colonies clearly demonstrated that America had shifted to a strong imperialistic attitude when it came to the Western Hemisphere and indeed the world in general, and would be forced to endure all of the benefits and tribulations that came from being an imperialistic power."

Tags:aguinaldo, american, emilio, filipino, history, philippines, spanish, war, wars

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
John Hay, the U.S. Ambassador to London, called the war of 1898 with Spain ?a splendid little war.? His statement, often quoted about the war, indicated his recognition that this war would change the position of the United States in the world and have ramifications for decades to come. This paper shows that the Spanish-American War often gets little attention in history texts, overpowered by the bigger, longer-lasting wars such as the War Between the States, World War I and World War II. The fact is that the Spanish-American War, which included significant action both in the Caribbean, especially Cuba, and the Pacific, especially involving the Philippines, had complex causes and complex long-term ramifications.

From the Paper
"The war of 1898 represented a turning point in the United States? international standing. The country acquired its first overseas territories and pushed Spain out of the Western Hemisphere (Rodriguez, 1998). It laid the groundwork for our involvement in World War II, as our growing interests in the Pacific had a profound effect on Japanese action in that arena. Until the Spanish-American war, our influence had been limited to North America. Now we had presence in both major oceans and had contended with other great powers, either by warfare or by maneuvering, and had emerged victorious (Rodriguez, 1998). It was not a challenge to defeat Spain, but the long-term effects of the war dramatically affected history for the following century. The groups who drew us into the war, both in the Caribbean and the Pacific, revolutionary factions in both Cuba and the Philippines, did not fare well. Cuba was liberated from Spain but under profound influence of the Untied States. In the Philippines, the people simply traded one country's domination for another's."

Tags:Monroe, Doctrine, Manifest, Destiny, Mexican, War, President, McKinley

Abstract
This paper studies the causes of the American Civil War. While most historians maintain that slavery was the main cause of the war, there are others who feel that slavery was only responsible to a certain extent and that there were complex political and economic factors which played an important role in the Civil War. Slavery was the oldest and most controversial issue dividing the North and the South and served as the primary catalyst for the Civil War but it was certainly not the only factor. South's waning ability to maintain its army of slaves and North's growing industrial power also fueled the conflict. There were some political factors too including the issue of equal representation in the Congress and states' autonomy which must be considered as possible causes of the war.

From the Paper
"Civil war is the most momentous and crucial period in the history of America. Not only did this war bring an end to centuries of slavery in the country but also gave way to numerous social and political changes. The country had already been torn by the negative trend in race relations and numerous cases of slave uprisings were taking their toll on the country's political and social structure. While slavery is cited as the most common cause of the Civil War, it is believed that there were several other factors involved. In other words, though slavery was the major cause it was certainly not the only cause. Civil war and abolition of slavery have become synonymous terms as the former led to the latter. But still some historians maintain that slavery has been turned into a too convenient excuse in connection with the Civil War."

Tags:war, american, civil, slavery, north, south, white, black

Abstract
This paper proposes a study of some of the most significant long-term and short-term effects of air-pollution that were produced as a direct result of the Gulf War. According to the paper, this pollution was caused by the burning of Kuwaiti oil fields. The paper explains the ways in which warfare is involved in environmental destruction including an analysis of air pollution during the war and the effect of air pollution of those people who were most directly exposed to it, including American soldiers and personnel who have been diagnosed with what is now generally referred to as Gulf War Syndrome.

Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Scope and Background of Problem
3. Proposed Project
4. Analysis and Results
5. Conclusions and Recommendations

From the paper:

"This proposal looks at three specific consequences of air pollution during the Gulf War, or rather at three sets of phenomena that are considered by many people to be consequences of air pollution during the war: The cluster of symptoms experienced by American soldiers and personnel called Gulf War Syndrome; any civilians in the war zone that are also suffering from similar syndromes; and the any similar effect on other mammals (i.e. wildlife) that were also exposed to the air pollution during the war."

Tags:Middle, East, oil, environment, health, war, pollution