Iraq Prison Scandal In the year 2003 The Bush administration justified and led the American people into war with Iraq. The White house reported claims that Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, had weapons of mass destruction and that the people of Iraq were living under brutal dictatorship from their leader. Ostensibly the war was to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and eviscerate and remnants of Alqaeda and its affiliates. The war mongers of both sides (democrats and republicans), wanted someone or something to blame for 9/11. After selling their lies and plans for the war to the America people, congress had given President Bush carte blanche to bring justice to those who caused pain and destruction on American soil.
As a continuation of his introdution, Colbert sarcastically asks for someone to pinch him because he may be in a dream being so close to Bush. He then continues and tells someone to shoot him in the face, a reference to Dick Cheney accidentally shooting someone he was hunting with. After these introductory jokes, Colbert got down to business with his roasting of President Bush. First, Colbert compares Bush to himself in the sense that they both go straight from the gut and do not pay attention to the facts. He then makes a joke about the government being best when governed least, and states that the government Bush has set up in Iraq is excellent by those standards.
Throughout his whole speech, he uses an anger and disparaging tome to reflect Bush’s point of view. Overall, George Bush uses emotional appeal, metaphors, and tone to portray Al Qaeda as iniquitous freedom haters which persuades the audience to recognise his contention and accept his point of view. Americans are depicted as victims of war from the September 11th terrorist incident with George Bush’s speech. An anecdote is used in the first paragraph to portray this: “...Americans have known the casualties of war--but not at the centre of a great city on a peaceful morning. Americans have known surprise attacks—but never before on thousands of civilians.
Meanwhile, some newspapers continued their campaign this week to have the controversial comedian Frankie Boyle purged from our screens for ever, and even suggested he has been snubbed by the British Comedy awards tonight. Are comedians really more offensive than ever? One of tonight's nominees, Shappi Khorsandi, and fellow comedian Steve Punt discuss new trends in comedy. But first, Emine Saner asks, why all the fuss about Gervais? Steve Punt: The thing that seems odd is that America has this vituperative political culture where there are news channels, radio stations and websites devoted to all-out assaults on politicians, but if you make jokes about Hollywood actors, people throw their hands up in horror.
In complete violation of the treaty, Hitler invaded the Rhineland in 1936, claiming it was Germany's ancient homeland. Similarly in 1990, despite the Kimbrough2 warnings from countries like England, America, and other United Nations members, Saddam Hussein ordered the invaded Kuwait because he believed it was ancient land owned by Iraq. It had natural resources, and they had to escape a financial debt of 30 million dollars owed to Kuwait. Both men lied to the world community to satisfy them while they
Jessica Carroll Carroll 1 Lanie Rieth English 121 21 Sept. 2009 “Fat-Fighters” On April 15, 2006, Slate.com posted an article called “Junk-Food Jihad.” In this article the author, William Saletan, discusses his views on the banning of junk food in a very sarcastic and mocking way. The author expresses his hatred against this topic very clearly in this article by establishing his ethos and stating his point of views. He grabs the reader’s attention right off the get go by stating, “Goodbye, War on Smoking. Hello, War on Fat.” Throughout the article, he argues his opinion on fast food and junk food vs. tobacco. His tone in the piece, the quotes he includes, the facts and statistics that he uses to establish his authority and credibility, and his way of arguing his point without pushing the reader to choose a side, all lead up to his main argument on the banning of junk-food.
Fear of the other country laying influence of their ideology, as a means to gain power, tensions rose. These tensions were fueled by the truman doctrine, which requested 400 million from congress to help combat communism in greece and turkey. The purpose of the Truman doctrine was to provide American economic and military assistance to any nation threatened by communism. The US feared the encroaching soviet strength, which perpetually launched them into an arms race with the U.S.S.R. The Soviets broke the US nuclear monopoly, and that struck fear into all americans, there is now someone just as dangerous as you are.
As the ’60s came and went, war protesters were still looking to the politicians to right wrongs, fix social issues, and bring the boys home. The Watergate scandal was on the horizon and Richard Nixon would later be impeached. The mid ’70s were looking to be a continuation of the 10,000-day war, and this was unacceptable for the public. When “Peace Train” made it into the many homes of a country overwhelmed in never-ending commotion, a British-born activist was ready to speak to the American audience about ending social unrest and the ever-important need for change. Cat Stevens was a superstar in the ‘70s.
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” said by John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton describes exactly what happened in George Orwell's world of Nineteen Eighty-Four. In today's modern society one can see some of the characteristics of Orwell's dystopia. These characteristics suggest that while many saw novels like Nineteen Eighty-Four as, "attractive to the primarily fringe thinkers" (Science) they are still relative to this day. In essence Orwell gave signs through his novel so that people of the world can avoid destruction brought on by their own government like that of Hitler and Stalin. Gwyneth Roberts says in her article about Nineteen Eighty-Four that, “Some of Orwell’s Newspeak vocabulary (Newspeak itself, Big Brother, doublethink) has entered the English language; certainly his vision of a drab totalitarian future has entered the general consciousness, although it is difficult to know whether his warning [have] been fully understood” (Roberts).
After reading war poems we are able to get a true idea of how horrific war was and learn of its negative consequences. The main idea in war poems becomes apparent when reading Wilfred Owen’s poem, Dolce et Decorum Est. In the last stanza, the lines: “My friend, you would not tell with such high zest to children ardent for some desperate glory, the old lie: Dolce et Decorum Est, Pro Patria Mori” demonstrates the main idea. ‘Dolce et Decorum est’ is a Latin saying, which means ‘it is sweet and right’. The poet is saying that people should not talk about war as enthusiastically as it gives the impression that war is glorious.