Capital structure is the process through which the finance of a nation or a company functions. It is the mix of equity and debt. The capital structure decisions are very crucial for the banks of the United Arab Emirates. They are responsible for the growth of the country. In this research how the capital structure decision play an important impact on the UAE banks would be discussed. Various verified publications, journals, and online articles would be referred to the same.
Romans were deep into religion and piousness, and they believed in justice and fair play. It was always the case that they would be worried that the King of Gods, Jupiter would get angry if a war was unjustly waged, and innocents would have died. And the Roman way of war was based on the moral obligation to correct something that was done wrong. To please Jupiter and to start a tradition, Ancus Marcius introduced a way to make war a way to resolve a wrong gone deal with reciprocity. A concept of social relations and Anthropology. Relating to the social theory, Torche (2011) describes two types of social capitals, Trust and Reciprocity. In his thesis, he presents that reciprocity may be defined as an exchange limited within the confines of personal relations that are totally defined by sociological, factual and temporal constraints. While it is overwhelmed by the concept of Trust, which he believes is a way to connect strangers that are at times anonymous and vague. He believes that nor are these two concepts intertwining, neither are they two extremes of the social capital. But he does agree on the potential of both to act as a linking mechanism between strangers or people related to each other. In Molms (2010) opinion people have misunderstood the concept of reciprocity, to him, it was a well-structured way for any form of dealing. It led to formations of bonds of trust and solidarity between people and nations. Both of these researchers thoroughly discuss the concept of reciprocity and explore its effectiveness and justness for a society. Livy also explores how the Romans used the concept of reciprocity and intertwined it with a way for social balance and justice.
In the reading collected by Davis (1913), Livy tells us how Ancus Marcius introduced a fair way to enter the war. To ensure that war is the last resort to everything. He would call out to the opposing party, telling them how he bears the flags of justice and peace, glorifying his piousness, then he would make a plea to the King of Gods, ” If I demand unjustly and impiously that these men and goods be given to me, the herald of the Roman people, then suffer me never to enjoy again my native country!” . There would be successive announcements at different stages to make sure the message is heard far and wide. Even If everything came to war, he would go back to his herald and the senators to get approval for war. This way the everything would be balanced. Agreed terms, when not met, the war would create a remedy the deal. Even though this model was for a small village, it was followed for a very long time even after Ancus Marcius was long gone the tradition was followed. From the book written by North (2000), we can understand how Romans were very religious in domestic and affairs of war.
What made the Roman Legion more effective in battle than the Greek phalanx? A quote from the reading must be included and the reading cited as well as at least two other academic sources. Be sure to structure with an introduction body and conclusion.
During the Macedonian Wars that spread from 214 BC to 148 BC, Romans fought their allies, the great Greek Empire. According to multiple sources on Wikipedia, It is important to understand how Greeks were divided into multiple Kingdoms during this era and how Romans took over the Greeks tactically and skillfully at the end, during the Fourth Macedonian War. After this time Romans had control over vast lands and areas in the eastern Mediterranean basin. The wars extended into totally four major events with empires that were Macedonian Empire, Seleucid Empire, and the Achaean League. According to the reading, Phalanx were foot soldiers that carried more brute force and sword throw that the Roman foot soldiers, and on any good day would overthrow their opponents. Romans and Greeks, both these nations had undoubtedly one of the greatest armies in the world. While the Greeks fought with the crude strength of their phalanx, Romans relied on tactics and reserve soldiers. In his book, Boatwright (2004) explains how a small Roman village grew to become the largest empire in the world that had absolute control over the eastern Mediterranean during the time of Roman Empires peak. In his book, he mentions how the Roman army was one of the greatest armies in the world that boasted of intellect and military tactic. Roman war strategy let their soldiers be more flexible to play out in any position, and if at a disadvantage the chances for recovery were far greater as in the case of Greeks, who would make a swing in one go. Greeks would instantly be at a disadvantage if their advance were a failure.
The main reason for the success of the Romans according to Polybius (1962) is their tactical command over the dynamics of war. He says that overall the army of the Romans would win against Greek because of the structure and composure that was maintained at all times. He also points out how a phalanx, who is self-reliant in his force of charge neglects the overall discipline required for modern warfare. The Romans would always rely on reserved divisions that could take back space left after one flank has left its place for an advance or either retreat. He is surprised how the Greeks thought that their phalanx was superior to the Roman foot soldiers because the Roman foot soldier was equipped to act at any position, individually or in flanks. In the reading he shrugs the Greek for overestimating their Phalanx or undermining the tactics of war used by the Greeks, “many Greeks supposed when the Macedonians were beaten that it was incredible; and many will afterwards be at a loss to account for the inferiority of the phalanx to the Roman system of arming”. Where it is understandable how the Roman strategy would outdo the Greek Phalanx any day.
According to Devine (2007), After the demise of Japan, North Korea had finally won its independence. The event leading after that created a turmoil and division of Korea in two regions of power. The United States had already moved into the southern region of Korea to fight off the effects of cold war with the Soviet Union. So the North took the support of the Soviets to have lay claim to the whole of Korea. The Korean war or “The Fatherland Liberation War” that started on June 25th, 1950, went on for three whole years. This was the start of the cold war where China and Soviet Union supported the leaders in North Korea, while the United States lend its support to the South Korean. None of the parties was ready to lay off their claim to the whole country, and this exploded into an all-out war. The United Nations took the side of South Koreans, and the war is still undecided. Even with the present cease-fire none of the countries accepts the temporary borders. According to Whelan, R. (1990), General Douglas MacArthur was Americas most powerful military officer, he was the one to accept the Japanese surrender while on U.S.S. Missouri during 1945. He was Allied Commander in Chief of the Far East (CINCFE) during the second world war. He commanded all the American Army involved in the Korean War. His achievements during the Korean war include the brilliant amphibious attack at Inchon, which might have lead to an early victory. But a Chinese attack in November decimated his plans, to which he called for nuclear retaliation. He relieved of his post due to this by President Truman to stop an escalation to World war 3.
MacArthur being the Commander in Chief, informed the War Department that he would send the ammunition required by the South Korean army from his resources for a swift counter to the North Korean advances. He had responded to an appeal from the Korean Military Advisory Group to counter the onslaught by the North Korean Army on 25th June 1950. The reason for his early response was his posting in that region as the CINNCFE, where he controlled all the Allied army fighting the cold war with Soviets. His action was significant because it was the entry of the United States in the Korean War. As George Elsey Notes on the letter, “Thus the first military action by the U.S. was taken on Macs initiative, not on orders from Washington. ” This also clarifies his position and him being faster than Washington to respond to this crisis. Only from this source, one cannot draw any conclusion on the relations of Mac and Truman. This because MacArthur was already a war hero for his achievements in the Japanese war, so it was a decisive decision by the commander in chief of the Far East region and it is justified.
The United States was the first country to develop and use Nuclear weapons in actual warfare. They used it twice against the Japanese and Soviets during World War 2. These bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing 120,000 people and injuring 130,000 others. The world has been under an arms race ever since, but due to several treaties, no one has used these weapons ever since. After the world war, President Truman sacked his commander in Chief for Far Eastern region for demanding a nuclear retaliation during the Korean War. This led to unrest, and the next president promised a swift and fast reaction to any of the United States or Allied enemies. John Foster Dulles who was an American diplomat was appointed as the Secretary of State during the next president’s tenure. Dulles soon became an accomplished diplomat by forming prominent alliances such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SATO) and an anti-Communist defensive Alliance. During the time the (ACDA) or Arms Control and Disarmament Agency was found. Its job was to succeed the U.S. Disarmament Administration and create an effective policy for arms control, disarmament, and nonproliferation. Being a Republican, he advocated for an aggressive stance on communism throughout the globe. He was an essential figure in the world during the Cold War era. In the reading by ACDA, a memorandum of conversation has been declassified for the public. The main participants are members of the Department of State and Department of Defense. The prominent figure being Dulles, Gerard Smith, McElroy and members of the military. The memorandum shares a vast account of conversation done during the initial meeting to find out the underlying problems in the policy, the “The Fortress America” and use of “Massive Retaliation” for local and all-out war.
According to Gaddis, J. L. (2005) strategic doctrine known as “massive retaliation is a nuclear strategy, which meant all or nothing. It was a threat to completely turn the Soviet Union into ruin by a barrage of nuclear strikes in two hours. This would make the nuclear war too destructive that who the victor is wouldn’t matter as the northern hemisphere will be totalled out. In a general sense, Massive retaliation means an all-out attack using full resources. Massive retaliation can counter the USSR’s preponderant conventional strength by destroying 100s of cities simultaneously rendering the huge Soviet army useless. But things took a bad turn for the allies as the Russians had developed and tested their nuclear weapons during that time through espionage, according to Schwartz, Michael I. (1996). This lead to the U.S. allies to question the effectiveness of massive retaliation. It also made Dulles think about his policy and make a revision to stop the world from destroying itself. To General Whites enquiry from the last paragraph of the current ACDA archives, “-If the US would be satisfied with a deterrent limited to Knocking out one hundred Russian cities and letting the Russians know in advance”, it is important to understand such a reaction would not be an effective as Russia covers a lot of Earth’s surface and Russia to possess nuclear arsenal. An all-out Nuclear onslaught to such a huge area would have dire consequences for all of the Northern Hemisphere including the Americans.
Section 1 References
 Molm, L. D. (2010). The structure of reciprocity. Social psychology quarterly, 73(2), 119- 131. Chicago
 Torche, F., & Valenzuela, E. (2011). Trust and reciprocity: A theoretical distinction between the sources of social capital. European Journal of Social Theory, 14(2), 181-198.
 Davis, W. S. (1913). Readings in Ancient History: Illustrative Extracts from the Sources (Vol. 1). Allyn and Bacon.
 North, J. A. (2000). Roman religion (Vol. 30). Cambridge University Press.
Section 2 References
 Polybius, Hultsch, F. O., & Shuckburgh, E. S. (1962). The Histories of Polybius; Tr. from the Text of F. Hultsch by Evelyn S. Shuckburgh, with a New Introd. by FW Walbank. Ind. University Press.
 Boatwright, M. T., Gargola, D. J., & Talbert, R. J. (2004). The Romans: from village to empire. Oxford University Press.
 Macedonian Wars. (2018, January 14). Retrieved February 06, 2018, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonian_Wars#cite_note-1
Section 3 References
 Note by George Elsey Regarding General Douglas MacArthur, June 25, 1950. Elsey Papers, Harry S. Truman Administration File. Korea – June 25, 1950
 Devine, Robert A.; Breen, T.H.; Frederickson, George M.; Williams, R. Hal; Gross, Ariela J.; Brands, H.W. (2007). America Past and Present. II: Since 1865 (8th ed.). Pearson Longman
 Whelan, R. (1990). Drawing the Line: The Korean War, 1950-1953. New York.
 (2017, August 10). Gen. MacArthur witnessed Trump-style ‘fire and fury’ in Korea, and it sickened him. The Washington Post.
Section 4 References
 Dulles, J. F. (1963). John Foster Dulles. The Last Years. New York.
 ACDA-2206, (June 20, 1969) Memorandum of Conversation
 Wells, S. F. (1981). The origins of massive retaliation. Political Science Quarterly, 96(1), 31-52.
 Gaddis, J. L. (2005). Strategies of containment: a critical appraisal of American national security policy during the Cold War. Oxford University Press.
 Schwartz, Michael I. (1996). “The Russian-(American) Bomb: The Role of Espionage in the Soviet Atomic Bomb Project”