Related Keywords

No Related Keywords

Register NowHow It Works Need Essay Need Essay
Napoleon Bonapartes Continental System
0 User(s) Rated!
Words: 1228 Views: 179 Comments: 0
Write a position paper on the following question: Should Napoleon Bonaparte have used the Continental System in his attempt to defeat Britain? Napoleon Bonaparte has been considered one of the most successful military leaders in history, driving France to conquer virtually all of Europe. However, despite all of his success, he was not over-confident. He recognized the fact that France lacked the resources to invade Great Britain, and he had already learned the defeat of his navy in the battle of Trafalgar that the French navy was no match for the strength of the British navy. Facing the fact...
not issued the Berlin Decree, none of this would have happened the way it did. Granted, Napoleon would likely have invaded Portugal and Russia anyway, but the circumstances would have been different. Perhaps France would have been better able to finance the invasions, allowing Napoleon to build a stronger and more effective army. Maybe Napoleon would have won the Battle of Nations at Liepzig in October, 1813. Maybe Napoleon would never even have faced exile. It is impossible to know for sure what could have happened, but I know that things would definitely have ended differently for Napoleon Bonaparte.

Become A Member Become a member to continue reading this essay orLoginLogin
View Comments Add Comment

Should cloning for human benefits... Should cloning for human benefits or even human cloning itself be allowed in society today? That is a question we must ask ourselves. Less than two years ago, an event in genetic history changed the world's perspective on "Reproduction" and added to the world's conscience a new element to the study of Biology. This event immediately caught my interest and intrigued me. It was the birth of a unique sheep named Dolly. Dolly was a clone sheep born on February 12th 1997 and this sheep doesn't have a father or mother. Dolly"s existence stuck like super glue onto the world's mind and refused to let go. The world started pondering the true potential of cloning and how it could affect mankind. The world considered the possibility of human cloning, the advantages and the disadvantages. Ever since the birth of sheep called Dolly is a question that ceased to world's mind: Should human cloning be a part of our society? The first attempts at artificial cloning were started as early as the beginning of this century. The first implantation of a nucleus into an egg cell occurred in 1952 by Robert Briggs and Thomas J. King in Philadelphia. Briggs and King transferred the nuclei of Leopard Frog"s eggs. However, the cloning attempt was unsuccessful and the egg cells did not develop. Successful nuclear transfer of the embryo cells did not occur until the 1970"s, when a scientist named John Gurdon repeated Briggs/Kings"s frog implantation. The Oocytes of the frogs successfully developed into tadpoles. Major breakthroughs in cloning technology came in the 1980"s and 1990"s. In 1994, Scottish scientists Dr. Ian Wilmut and Keith Campbell cloned "Megan and Morag"; the world"s first cloned sheep. Soon afterwards, Dolly was also cloned. Presently, scientists who believe that cloning should be allowed are striving to perfect nuclear transfer technology in hope of harnessing its many advantages. There are, of course, other scientists who are against cloning. At that time, all the religious people came into the play. They started to announce that cloning should not be allowed in anywhere in or out side the earth and they have to reject it in different ways. They felt that it is wrong to mimic natural creation, and play with god's creation. World religions started to make an arguing about the process of cloning and every religion got closely the same thought. In Hinduism, the Hindus rejected the thought of cloning and they are not allowed to injure sentient beings, so the tradition rejects both animal research and the destruction of embryos. In Native American religion have issued formal public statements advising against human reproductive cloning because of legislation that could ban human cloning In Buddhism, the Buddhist rejects the process of cloning. The Dalai Lama once said "if the person has been cloned then the good human qualities will transfer to bad qualities". Buddhist monks said that cloning is just a foolhardy attempt to eliminate suffering from the world. Buddhism"s eight fold Path also prohibits harm to any sentient beings, which presents possible restrictions on embryo and animal research. In Islam, the Muslim people reject the process of human cloning because it's wrong to playing with god's creation. Muslims wouldn"t support cloning as whole body with a soul, but they support cloning as part of body system because it would help the sickness people and donate part of body's system. Also they said that the children are gift from God. God created man and women; he instituted marriage for their manual benefit and for the procreation of children. God told Adam and Eve to "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it ". In today's society, religious opinion about human cloning is probably the same. The supporters for human cloning argue that human cloning should not be allowed in anywhere, as the research may have to potential to eliminate many of the world"s problems such as animal extinction and can also benefit mankind in many ways. On the other hand, the contest of human cloning and the religious people said that cloning is unethical and should not be defying the very foundation of natural creation. Religious opinion on cloning is still vastly divided. Many religious groups are against cloning because they feel that it is wrong to take part in God's creations. They believe that scientist should not take the work of god into their own hands. Others religious people felt very strongly that human cloning is immoral and unethical because human cloning could destroy their age-old concept of "father" and "mother". If an offspring is cloned from a parent, the offspring would no longer actually share genetic traits. I, on the other hand, agree with the religious thoughts and believe that cloning should not proceed into the future. The disadvantages of human cloning far outweigh the advantages. Some advantages to human cloning include: "¢ Providing better research capabilities to find cures to many present diseases. "¢ Bringing back friends or relatives who have passed away by cloning an identical copy. "¢ Providing children for women who are single and do not wish to have artificial insemination. "¢ The choice of physical characteristics who to look like Some religious people say that there are disadvantages such as: "¢ Cloning is unethical "¢ Cloning reduces genetic diversity "¢ Human cloning could produce another "Hitler", "Saddam", etc. "¢ Human cloning is not at all "natural" "¢ Some people, such as Lauren Tribe a constitutional law scholar say that "human cloning would alter the very meaning of humanity" "¢ wrong to mimic natural creation "¢ cloning should not proceed into the future "¢ It's wrong to play with god's creature. Human cloning is totally unethical. There are many moral wrong in genetically making a carbon copy of an individual. The individuals from the past, such as Adolf Hitler, can be brought back if human cloning is legalized. However, Individuals from the past such as Hitler can be copied in exact physical form, and exact psychological form and even worse. Nuclear Transfer is only able to copy Hitler"s DNA into another twin. As for the opinion of religion that human cloning is a fake and unnatural way of birth, I have found a big justification for that thought. In cloning, a real live being is produced differently like in birth. Also, the process of cloning does involve a machine or any artificial products. Should human cloning be allowed in our society today? That question is up to you to answer because every people have a different thought about cloning. However, keep in mind the disadvantages of human is more than the advantages in human cloning. In conclusion the human cloning is used to break the word of god. Children should not be created through technology, but through the mating of human beings. Human shouldn't be created by anyone but God. In this case, the human cloning is a negative manner.   

Should cloning for human benefits or even human cloning itself be allowed in society today? That is a question we must ask ourselves. Less than two years ago, an event in genetic history changed the world's perspective on "Reproduction" and added to the world's conscience a new element to...

Words: 1185 View(s): 115 Comment(s): 0
The idea that America is turning...The idea that America is turning fascist has been popular on the Left for as long as I can remember: in the 1960s, when antiwar radicals raged against the Machine, this kind of hyperbole dominated campus political discourse and even made its way into the mainstream. When the radical Weather Underground went into ultra-Left meltdown and began issuing incoherent communiqués to an indifferent American public, they invariably signed off by declaring: Death to the fascist insect pig that preys on the life of the people! Such rhetoric, too overheated for American tastes, was quite obviously an exaggeration: America in the 1960s was no more fascistic than miniskirts, Hula Hoops, and the rhyming demagoguery of Spiro T. Agnew. Furthermore, we weren"t even close to fascism, as the downfall of Richard M. Nixon made all too clear to whatever incipient authoritarians were nurtured at the breast of the GOP. Back in those halcyon days, America was, in effect, practically immune from the fascist virus that had wreaked such havoc in Europe and Asia in previous decades: there was a kind of innocence, back then, that acted as a vaccine against this dreaded affliction. Fascism "“ the demonic offspring of war "“ was practically a stranger to American soil. After all, it had been a century since America had been a battleground, and the sense of invulnerability that is the hallmark of youth permeated our politics and culture. Nothing could hurt us: we were forever young. But as we moved into the new millennium, Americans acquired a sense of their own mortality: an acute awareness that we could be hurt, and badly. That is the legacy of 9/11. Blessed with a double bulwark against foreign invasion "“ the Atlantic and Pacific oceans "“ America hasn"t experienced the atomizing effects of large-scale military conflict on its soil since the Civil War. On that occasion, you"ll remember, Lincoln, the Great Emancipator, nearly emancipated the U.S. government from the chains of the Constitution by shutting down newspapers, jailing his political opponents, and cutting a swathe of destruction through the South, which was occupied and treated like a conquered province years after Lee surrendered. He was the closest to a dictator that any American president has come "“ but George W. Bush may well surpass him, given the possibilities that now present themselves. From the moment the twin towers were hit, the fascist seed began to germinate, to take root and grow. As the first shots of what the neocons call World War IV rang out, piercing the post-Cold War calm like a shriek straight out of Hell, the political and cultural climate underwent a huge shift: the country became, for the first time in the modern era, a hothouse conducive to the growth of a genuinely totalitarian tendency in American politics. The events of 9/11 were an enormous defeat for the U.S., and it is precisely in these circumstances "“ the traumatic humbling of a power once considered mighty "“ that the fascist impulse begins to find its first expression. That, at any rate, is the historical experience of Germany, for example, where a defeated military machine regenerated itself on the strength of German resentment and lashed out at Europe once again. The terrible defeat of World War I, and the injustice of the peace, created in Weimar Germany the cradle of National Socialism: but in our own age, where everything is speeded up "“ by the Internet and the sheer momentum of the knowledge explosion "“ a single battle, and a single defeat, can have the same Weimarizing effect. The Republican party"s response to 9/11 was to push through the most repressive series of laws since the Alien and Sedition Acts, starting with the PATRIOT Act and its successors "“ making it possible for American citizens to be held without charges, without public evidence, without trial, and giving the federal government unprecedented powers to conduct surveillance of its own citizens. Secondly, Republicans began to typify all opposition to their warmaking and anti-civil liberties agenda as practically tantamount to treason. Congress, thoroughly intimidated, was silent: they supinely voted to give the president a blank check, and he is still filling in the amount"¦ The intellectual voices of American fascism began to be heard in the land before the first smoke had cleared from the stricken isle of Manhattan, as even some alleged libertarians began to advocate giving up traditional civil liberties all Americans once took for granted. It is said that there are no atheists in foxholes, wrote libertarian columnist and Reason magazine contributing editor Cathy Young, perhaps there are no true libertarians in times of terrorist attacks, she noted, as she defended government spying on Americans and denounced computer encryption technology as scary. As much as Young"s self-conception as a libertarian is the result of a misunderstanding, that infamous anti-government sentiment that used to permeate the GOP evaporated overnight. Lew Rockwell trenchantly labeled this phenomenon red-state fascism, writing: The most significant socio-political shift in our time has gone almost completely unremarked, and even unnoticed. It is the dramatic shift of the red-state bourgeoisie from leave-us-alone libertarianism, manifested in the Congressional elections of 1994, to almost totalitarian statist nationalism. Whereas the conservative middle class once cheered the circumscribing of the federal government, it now celebrates power and adores the central state, particularly its military wing. This worrisome shift in the ideology and tone of the conservative movement has also been noted by the economist and writer Paul Craig Roberts, a former assistant secretary of the Treasury, who points to the brownshirting of the American Right as a harbinger of the fascist mentality. I raised the same point in a column, and the discussion was taken up by Scott McConnell, editor of The American Conservative, in a thoughtful essay that appeared in the Feb. 14 issue of that magazine. My good friend Scott sounds a skeptical note: It is difficult to imagine any scenario, after 9/11, that would not lead to some expansion of federal power. The United States was suddenly at war, mobilizing to strike at a Taliban government on the other side of the world. The emergence of terrorism as the central security issue had to lead, at the very least, to increased domestic surveillance "“ of Muslim immigrants especially. War is the health of the state, as the libertarians helpfully remind us, but it doesnt mean that war leads to fascism." All this is certainly true, as far as it goes: but what if the war takes place, not in distant Afghanistan, but on American soil? That, I contend, is the crucial circumstance that makes the present situation unique. Yes, war is the health of the State "“ but a war fought down the block, instead of on the other side of the world, means the total victory of State power over individual liberty as an imminent possibility. To paraphrase McConnell, it is difficult to imagine any scenario, after another 9/11, that would not lead to what we might call fascism. William Lind, director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism at the Free Congress Foundation and a prominent writer on military strategy, argues that what he calls "cultural Marxism" is a much greater and more immediate danger than militaristic fascism, and that, in any case, the real problem is "abstract nationalism," the concept of "the state as an ideal." This ideal, however, died amid the destruction wrought by World War I, and is not about to be resurrected. And yet"¦ Lind raises the possibility, at the end of his piece, that his argument is highly conditional: "There is one not unlikely event that could bring, if not fascism, then a nationalist statism that would destroy American liberty: a terrorist event that caused mass casualties, not the 3,000 dead of 9/11, but 30,000 dead or 300,000 dead. We will devote some thought to that possibility in a future column." I was going to wait for Mr. Lind to come up with that promised column, but felt that the matter might be pressing enough to broach the subject anyway. Especially in view of this, not to mention this. If "everything changed" on the foreign policy front in the wake of 9/11, then the domestic consequences of 9/11 II are bound to have a similarly transformative effect. If our response to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon was to launch a decades-long war to implant democracy throughout the Middle East and the rest of the world, what will we do when the battlefield shifts back to the continental U.S.? I shudder to think about it. The legal, ideological, and political elements that go into the making of a genuinely fascist regime in America are already in place: all that is required is some catalytic event, one that neednt even be on the scale of 9/11, but still dramatic enough to give real impetus to the creation of a police state in this country.   

The idea that America is turning fascist has been popular on the Left for as long as I can remember: in the 1960s, when antiwar radicals raged against the Machine, this kind of hyperbole dominated campus political discourse and even made its way into the mainstream. When the radical Weather...

Words: 1559 View(s): 106 Comment(s): 0