Historically unjust wars have never improved the standard of living for the American citizen and have served to suppress the inherent natural rights of the human beings involved. In conclusion, I combine contemporary and historical arguments to highlight the continuing stream of injustice that exists in American foreign policy.; The conceptual bases of this thesis include the philosophical constructs of Just War Theory, limited government, and natural rights as applied to foreign policy. Just War Theory was originally articulated by St. Augustine and represents the requirements a nation must satisfy to wage war justly. Building upon the basis of Just War Theory, I then split the discussion into two main categories. The first is a historical look at certain American thinkers and their reactions to what they saw as unjust wars based in their strong idealistic goals for humanity. The second is a critical examination of American foreign policy based upon the analytical model arising from these American thinkers. The thesis concludes with an examination of contemporary applications of this analysis with an examination of recent wars that have taken place in the Middle East and an assessment of their just or unjust nature. My historical research examines the arguments of Thomas Paine, Emma Goldman, Henry David Thoreau, and Martin Luther King, Jr. I will review each thinker to highlight their criticisms of the unjust wars in which America has been involved from the 18th Century to the 21st Century. A secondary goal of this research is to trace a pattern of idealistic thinking that is present in American Revolutionary thought. These ideals refer to notions of natural rights, social liberty, economic freedom, and the constant pursuit of justice. By using the established arguments put forth by these four American thinkers, I argue that another unjust war will only bring misery to America and any other nation involved. Finally, my contemporary research develops the CIA term "blowback" and its effect on American foreign policy. By applying the theory of blowback to the current military disputes in which the United States has been or could be involved, I attempt to persuade the reader to resist the notion of engaging in another war.

This research paper explores differences in company performance levels, as measured by selected company fundamentals and annual return, with regard to the marital status of top executives, specifically the chief executive officer and the chief financial officer. It examines whether the differences in firm performance are determined by the marital status of the respective business executive. Groups of never married, married, and divorced executives are compared against each other to establish if and how the company performance changes between these groups. Summary statistics of the examined variables in conjunction with the results of the simple and multiple regression analyses indicate that marriage clearly has a detrimental effect on a firm’s performance. By contrast, divorce is beneficial as it contributes to improved firm performance. As previous research has revealed, professional performance of top executives, particularly CEOs, as well as money managers is influenced by distractions originating in their personal life events. Because human attention is naturally limited, major life events, such as marriage or divorce, can have detrimental effects on the professional performance of a business executive, and therefore also on the firm performance. Consistent with the results of previous research, the data analysis identifies marital status of CEOs and CFOs as a significant determinant of firm performance.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.