Develop a one-paragraph summary using the Week 10 Writing Assignment Template [DOC]. A section for your summary has been provided within the template.
Note: Do not use this summary as the introduction to your paper.
Think about what you learned in this course. What are your new financial goals?
Would you like to become more liquid, to save more for your retirement, or to start a new business?
Whatever your goals, finance is right at the core. Think about what you learned in this course regarding investing to complete this assignment.
Write a two to three-page paper in which you:
Write an introduction in your own words, based on the content of your paper.
Describe three ways you will invest in your future based on the principles of finance discussed in this course. Include terminology from the course and use citations as necessary to support your explanation of the terminology.
Discuss one of the three ways you feel most confident as a way to invest in your future. Explain your level of confidence.
Of the three ways that you will invest in your future, discuss the one that you perceive might be the most challenging. Then, discuss how you might overcome some of those challenges.
Discuss investment plans based on finance principles.
Consequently, jus ad bellum comprises several conditions but most importantly: just cause and proportionality. This gives people a guide whether it’s lawful to enter a war or not. However, this is only one part of the theory of the just war. Nevertheless, it can be seen above that jus ad bellum can be debated throughout, showing that there is no definitive theory of a just war, as it is normatively theorised. The second section begins deciphering jus in bello or what actions can we classify as permissible in just wars (Begby et al (2006b), Page 323). First, it is never just to intentionally kill innocent people in wars, supported by Vittola’s first proposition. This is widely accepted as ‘all people have a right not to be killed’ and if a soldier does, they have violated that right and lost their right. This is further supported by “non-combatant immunity” (Frowe (2011), Page 151), which leads to the question of combatant qualification mentioned later in the essay. This is corroborated by the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, ending the Second World War, where millions were intently killed, just to secure the aim of war. However, sometimes civilians are accidentally killed through wars to achieve their goal of peace and security. This is supported by Vittola, who implies proportionality again to justify action: ‘care must be taken where evil doesn’t outweigh the possible benefits (Begby et al (2006b), Page 325).’ This is further supported by Frowe who explains it is lawful to unintentionally kill, whenever the combatant has full knowledge of his actions and seeks to complete his aim, but it would come at a cost. However, this does not hide the fact the unintended still killed innocent people, sho>GET ANSWER