Who do Cassius and Casca want to win over to their plan, and why might they feel it is important for this person to join them?

It is Cassius more than Casca who wants Brutus to participate in the conspiracy to kill Caesar. Furthermore, in Act 1 Scene 3, Cassius reveals that his real motive in wanting to murder Caesar is that he doesn’t like the man. He tells Casca “why should Caesar be a tyrant, then? / Poor man, I know he would not be a wolf / But that he sees the Romans are but sheep….What trash is Rome, / What rubbish…when it serves / For the base matter to illuminate / So vile a thing as Caesar” (106-115).  Cassius knows he lacks moral grounding in killing Caesar, and he thinks less of Casca than he does Caesar, calling him “dull” and otherwise insulting him in the same scene (60-70). Casca is such a coward that he is unnerved by the storm then raging. Lacking moral grounding, Cassius seduces Brutus, who has moral standing among the Senators as well as among the people, to join the conspiracy, convincing him that Caesar is ambitious and will undermine the Republic. Casca is more of a "yes man" to Cassius, doing as he is told or as he expects Cassius wants him to do--he has little to do with persuading Brutus.

In Moby Dick, why did Ahab seek revenge?

Simply put, Ahab seeks revenge because the whale caused him to lose his leg.

Ahab does not see the whale as merely "a dumb brute...that...smote (him) from blindest instinct" Chapter 36).  He sees in him rather "outrageous strength, with an inscrutable malice...(that) insulted (him)" (Chapter 36).  He is obsessed, compelled to seek vengeance by an "innermost necessit(y) in (his) being" (Chapter 36), "damned in the midst of paradise" (Chapter 37), by "madness maddened" (Chapter 37).  His heart is consumed by hatred and a deep-seated need to seek revenge, and he vows to pursue "that accursed white whale that...made a poor pegging lubber of (him)...round Good Hope, and round the Horn...and round perdition's flames before (he) give(s) him up" (Chapter 36).

How does Bilbo's newly named sword relate to his new self and why doesn't Bilbo want to reveal the ring to the dwarves?

Up to the point where Bilbo kills his first spider and names his sword Sting, Bilbo has not done one heroic deed on his own.  Previously, every time the company got in trouble, it was Gandalf who guided the company through.  When Gandalf left the party after the rest at Beorn's, he put Bilbo in charge of the expedition to Lonely Mountain.  Gandalf knew that deep down inside Mr. Baggins was a Took part of him longing to come to the surface.  The Tooks were an adventurous and brave family of Hobbits, which had led to them being known as not respectable among the peace loving Hobbits in the Shire.  The Baggins is one of these respectable families.  Bilbo is half Took and half Baggins, but he has led his life, up to this point, as a peace-loving Baggins.  With the death of the spider, Bilbo's Took side comes forth, and he has now become an adventurous, brave Hobbit.

After his escape from Gollum, Bilbo overhears the dwarves quarreling about the loss of their burglar to the Goblins.  He leaves the ring on and, because Hobbits can move very quietly, he creeps up on the dwarves before removing his ring to reveal himself.  Because he was able to do this, the dwarves' praised his burglar skills.  Basking in their praise, Bilbo kept the secret of the ring to himself.

When Thorin and company come into the presence of the Master, the raft-men of the elves told him that they were the Elvenking's escaped prisoners. 

1) State two ways in which Lady Macbeth is contrasted with Lady Macduff.2) Explain how the events in the scene lead to the restoration of Scotland.

Lady Macduff is radically different from Lady Macbeth. She appears as the more traditional woman, one who is loyal and protective of her son and, despite her anger at her husband for leaving them to go to England, she is still the traditional wife and mother-figure. (See Act IV, scene ii.)

Lady Macbeth, on the other hand, is the nontraditional female - the one who has pushed and pushed her husband into the throne of Scotland. When she reads the letter from her husband about the prophecies of the witches (I, v), she makes a speech about fearing that her husband is too kind, "too full o'th' milk of human kindness" to actually fight his way to the throne. Later, in speaking to Macbeth about his hesitation in killing Duncan, she says she would rather have killed the child she nursed at her breast than to go back on what they have planned as far as killing Duncan to claim the throne.  Lady Macbeth is painted as the epitome of the evil, unnatural female.  She is characterized as being closer in nature to the witches than to a mortal woman like Lady Macduff.

With regards to your question #2, could you be more specific as to which scene you are asking about?  Thanks!

WHAT IS THE FULL NAME OF CHAMINDA VAAS?

Chaminda Vass is the a cricketer playing for his country,
Sri Lanka, since 1994. His full name is Warnakulasuriya Patabendige Ushantha
Joseph Chaminda Vaas.

He is a left fast medium
bowler, and also useful as a batsman. Next to Muralitharan, he is one of the most most
successful bowler from Sri Lanka having taken more than 300 wickets in test matches and
more than 400 wickets in one day international matches. He as made more than 3000 runs
in test matches including one century and 13 half
centuries.

What was the Duchess's fate? Is there evidence in the poem "My Last Duchess" by Robert Browning?

According to the words of the widower Duke, the Duchess,
as lovingly and smiling as he would portray her was also quite salacious and flirty with
people form court. When we get to the point where the Duke explains her demise, we
encounter an enraged and hurt man who may have been cuckolded, and humiliated. In the
Duke's own words, he made the order to kill the
Duchess.

Hence, we read the
words

I gave commands. Then all smiles stopped
altogether.

What is the critical argument of Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack, and how could one argue that?

Bob Woodward, award winning journalist who along with Carl
Bernstein exposed the Nixon administration criminal activities cover up called
Watergate, poses the question in Plan of
Attack of whether the United States could justify a unilateral (single
instigator) war against Iraq and Saddam Hussein that violated the sovereignty of an
independent nation. To find the answer to his question Woodward investigated the
dynamics of the George W. Bush administration by examining records and tracking the
behavior and statements of the administration's key
personalities.

For instance, Woodward
examined General Colin Powell's actions and statements,
particularly in relation to Powell's disagreement with the decisions being made about
the war and his attempt to dissuade Vice President Cheney from advocating the unilateral
Iraq/Hussein war. He also investigated the link between Scowcroft and the elder Bush,
since it appeared that Scowcroft's messages about the inadvisability of such a war were
covert messages opposing said war that originated from the elder Bush and were intended
for George W. Bush.

Woorward's intention was to provide an
accurate and detailed account of why George W. Bush led the U.S. into an unprecedented
preemptive war against Iraq with the aim of deposing its dictator, Saddam Hussein,
notwithstanding that Iraq is a sovereign nation, such as the U.N. Charter upholds as
inviolate. Woodward's conclusion and critical argument is
that even though George W. Bush could not justify a war against Iraq according to the
U.S. Congress and the U.N. Charter definition of a justifiable war, having no clear
expectation of victory nor exit plan nor clear world mandate of accord, Bush was
nonetheless determined to initiate war against Iraq and refused to allow any obstacle
stand in his way.

You would argue/prove the
critical argument of Plan of Attack, which arises
from the question Woodward poses, by referencing the facts about Powell, Cheney,
Scowcroft, the elder Bush, and George W. Bush as highlighted herein, along with other
personalities examined in the book.