The declarations of the letter to the U.S. Congress by the economists concerning the bailouts are evidently specified the disagreement of the source of the letter about the GM bailout. The document stated that the bailout would disrupt the notion of free market in U.S. and that it will break the people who held in the free market (Velasquez, 2012). Also, the bailout and government interference will shift the free market economy into socialism (ibid). The economists and other parties which is convoluted in the making of the letter, sustained the free market economy. They do not approve on government interruption as it disrupts the mechanism of the market that is free of any interference particularly from the government. The sources of the letter thought that it was GM’s own accountability to bail itself out of the insolvency. The bankruptcy was a consequence of bad management of the company and it was its own accountability to resolve the matter. The interference by the government will move the market mechanism. The bailout will disturb the equal right of the people of life, freedom, and possessions as what John Locke’s notion. Furthermore, government meddling will also lower the public’s safety based on Adam Smith’s theory.
Answer:
The end of the Peloponnesian War did not bring the promised “…beginning of freedom for all of Greece.”[1] Instead, Sparta provoked a series of wars which rearranged the system of alliances which had helped them win the long war against Athens. A peace conference between Sparta and Thebes in 371 ended badly and the Spartans promptly marched upon Thebes with an army of nine thousand hoplites and one thousand cavalry. Opposing them were six thousand Theban and allied hoplites and one thousand cavalry.[2]
Over generations, the Thebans had been increasing the depth of their phalanx, generally given pride of place on the right wing of coalition armies, from the traditional eight men, to sixteen, then twenty-five and even thirty-five ranks. As the Spartan and Theban armies maneuvered toward the plain of Leuctra, the brilliant Theban general Epaminondas devised a new tactic which would use the deep phalanx to destroy the myth of Spartan superiority.
Over the generations, the citizens of Thebes had developed a reputation as tough, unyielding fighters. Epaminondas had witnessed the power of the deep Theban phalanx at previous battles, and increased the depth of the phalanx to fifty ranks, but only eighty files wide. But Epaminondas’ true innovation was to position the deep Theban column not on the right, where it would have clashed with the Spartan’s weaker allies, but on the left, where it would attack the main phalanx of the Spartan “Peers” led by King Cleombrotus, arranged only twelve ranks deep. In other words, Epaminondas was concentrating his fighting power at the critical point in the evenly-spaced, less concentrated Spartan phalanx. Finally, he arranged the Theban’s allies on his right would advance “in echelon”, each poleis’ phalanx staying slightly to the rear of that to its left, so that the allied right would protect the Theban’s flank, but not initially engage with the enemy (see Leuctra map – ‘Initial Situation’). When asked why he positioned the Theban phalanx opposite the Spartan king, Epaminondas stated he would “crush…the head of the serpent”.[3]
Answer:
At the most extreme, no attack on Pearl Harbor could have meant no US entering the war, no ships of soldiers pouring over the Atlantic, and no D-Day, all putting 'victory in Europe' in doubt
Explanation:
The Annexation of Texas, the Mexican-American War, and the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, 1845–1848. ... Accordingly, while the United States extended diplomatic recognition to Texas, it took no further action concerning annexation until 1844, when President John Tyler restarted negotiations with the Republic of Texas.
