A Comparison of the Perspectives of the Lost Boys of Sudan with the Term Paper

A Comparison of the Perspectives of the Lost Boys of Sudan with the Typical American Perspectives on Certain Political Concept - Term Paper Example As we understand, there is a very big difference between typical Americans and the Lost Boys of Sudan, which make them to perceive things differently. The typical Americans understand that it is the purpose of their government to ensure security. Due to this perception, they direct blames to the government whenever their security is threatened. In most cases, the president, who is the head of government, is required to take responsibility. The Lost Boys of Sudan, being in a foreign country, do not perceive this as the purpose of the government. Back in their country, their government assisted their neighboring communities, the Baqqara, in attacking and destroying their village (Hecht 20). Due to such things that their government back in Sudan used to do, they cannot perceive as the purpose of a government to provide security to its citizens. Back in Sudan, they were ruled by the Sharia Laws, which were not made by government (Hecht 19). These makes the Sudanese not to perceive that i t is the purpose of government to make laws and ensure that good policies are put in place to ensure proper governing of its citizens. Americans on the other hand understands this very well. They understand their rights and thus require that the government does not infringe on any of them while making policies and laws (Lasser 70). They perceive that it is the purpose of the government to ensure that the laws it makes are not cruel to a certain group of the community. Several injustices have been done to these Lost Boys of Sudan by the Sudanese government. Their government was encouraging their neighbors to do injustice to them. As a result, these Sudanese do not perceive as the purpose of government to ensure Justice for all. According to Hecht (20) back in their early time in Sudan, their neighboring community took their possessions and their government did nothing about that. Americans through understanding of their legal system and how their judicially works are very vigilant ab out their rights. They perceive that it is the purpose of the judicial arm of their government to ensure that any injustice done to them is punished. The Lost Boys of Sudan perceive that they do not have power to control their political nature. Back in Sudan, they did not have the power to decide who they wanted to lead them. This was due to the northern dominance and political threats (Hecht 17). The Americans on the other hand perceive as their democratic right to decide who to have as their president thus their perception is that they have control over this matter. The Sudanese also perceive that human nature is full of suffering and problems. As Dengs and Ajak (1) shows us before he got to the refugee camp, he was in a desperate situation and he was feeling as if he was going to die next minute. He also shows that his family members back in Sudan are suffering and thus needs to be liberated. In America, there is little suffering thus, Americans do not perceive human nature from this perspective. They view life as enjoyable thus not having room for suffering. To them only greedy individuals induce human nature with suffering. Both perceive that it is human nature to assist one another in times of trouble. Back in their land in Sudan before the beginning of the civil war, it was their culture to assist. They used to assist their neighboring community with water and pasture (Hecht 20). Americans also are very kind and majorities are willing to contribute through humanitarian organizations in order to assist those who are troubled by war or hunger. They willingly assisted these Sudanese to settle in their country (Bixler 146). There is also a perception among the typical Americans that a person to be in liberty to do

EADs-BAe merger case analysis (Corporate Finance) Assignment

EADs-BAe merger case analysis (Corporate Finance) - Assignment Example Even though the companies had not revealed benefits and a detailed business structure for the merger it is believed that negotiations with the respective states had not reached that level. The two firms were optimistic that the merger would have built a strong case to pass to the owners of the business. This discussion will address the valuation of the two firms using various models, the motivation and strategy evaluation, the response in the security market and corporate governance analysis to seek ways of making such moves successful and establish the reasons behind the failure. Strategy and Motivation Analysis The motivation of the proposed merger were based on global rivalry, share in the market by the firms, the level of complimentarity, variation in the industrial structure like offsetting of the monopoly. BAE was also believed to be the springboard that would enable EADS to have its biggest jump it craved for in the Northern American continent (Jane's Defense Industry, 1900; p . 75). BAE has a chief role in the manufacture of military equipment as it was noted that 95% of the BAE systems total sales were related to military sales. BAE also plays a vital role in the production of military aircraft such as the Typhoon fighter and the Tornado fighter bomber. The terms of the negotiations were that EADs was to offer 35 billion Euros which was 12% bid premium even though the new ownership was to be divided on a ratio of 3:2 in favor of the shareholders of EADS. In case the term was favorable to BAE it would shape the likelihood of the merger’s success. The US state would also call for disposal of asset upon the merger strategy which was set for security review. There are no current plans to divest any of the company’s operations in the United States as a section of merger with EADS according to the spokesman of BAE (Spulber, 2007; p. 3). EADS and BAE had a deal to have cost savings without necessarily giving details in regard to the scale and the manner in which they might be generated. Amongst the potential opportunities was the potential to accumulate more sales as the network by BAE in the export markets was immense such as ties with India, Australia and Saudi Arabia which would open doors for the EADS. The benefits from the merger were meant to extend over widening markets and that the firms were to target industrial benefits and operational synergy in all joint business. The likely synergy from the merger comprised of a minimum synergy which could be derived as the value of the pre-merger of both companies + the synergy = pre-merger security value + the number of shares for the post-merger. Taking S = Synergy and taking data on 11th September where the EADS share price was 29.30Euros while the number of outstanding shares as at 31st December 2012 being 8.21 billion shares, it then stipulates that the pre-merger value for EADS was 26 billion Euros. Conversely, taking the share value for BAE on 11th September, 2012 as 4. 75Euros and the number of outstanding shares on 31st December, 2012 as 3.59 billion, it applies that the premerger value for BAE is 17.05 billion Euros found as 3.59X4.75 Euros (Financial times, 2013; p. 1-7). Now; by taking the pre-merger security price = the average price of the stock prior to the merger to be EADS + BAE It concurs that