In the speech written by Patrick Henry he is trying to declare that the American people are under British rule, and are being completely controlled. Patrick says through his speech that if we do not fight now there will eventually be nothing to fight for, because the British rule will take over. In the speech by Benjamin Franklin he talks about some parts of the constitution approve, he believes that the government is right for the people but it was truly not made for the people. These speeches were both written to solve a problem, these two brave men ready to do something to fight that problem, to try to rise against the odds and skirmish for what they believe in. In the speech written by Patrick Henry he starts by setting up others to listen to him by talking about patriotism.
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. In between comments regarding President Bush, Colbert made small humorous quips about other subjects such as America, democracy, religion, and food. Throughout the entire speech, Colbert takes time to throw shots towards President Bush, and he also takes jabs at one of his typical subjects, Fox News. Many of his jokes and quips deal with not only President Bush, but also the government and government policies as a whole. Colbert also does this all in a way that ridicules the President while Bush does not even fully understand that Colbert makes fun of him, and this allows Colbert to get away with directly insulting the President to his face.
Christopher Hitchens – Neoconservatism Christopher Hitchens describes himself as an anti-theist and a believer in the philosophical values of the enlightenment. Dr. Hitchen’s became an activist against Islam when Ayatullah Kohmeini declared a fatwa against his personal friend Salman Rushdie. This event led him to join the neo-conservative side on foreign policy and the war on terrorism. Dr. Hitchens believes that the war on terrorism is both just and necessary. He backs this statement up with numerous facts and hypothetical situations that could’ve happen if the US government had not invaded Iraq.
The True Meaning of Liberation When the United States led an invasion of Iraq in 2003, there was great dissent over whether there was enough justification for the invasion. The president of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, had been accused of holding weapons of mass destruction as well as committing several crimes against the people of Iraq. The United States government held that Saddam’s regime was threatening to the world and its own people, and many Americans supportive of the government since 9/11 thought the same. However, there was a wave of protests across western countries condemning the act. These protestors argued that there were not enough reasons to justify an invasion of Iraq.
We see this now when a politician will amend his opponent, even though he has devastated him just previously, this is ethos. “Who is here so vile that will not love his country?” he asks. Who would say no? When our politicians began passing legislation after 9/11, a repeated strategy was to say that anyone who questioned the legislation was not patriotic, which is very similar to Brutus’s tactics, this is logos. This is how and why I believe Brutus delivered the more effective speech.
In other words he told the society that they are stuck on unserious matters, while important political events are taking place. Bill Clinton’s goal was to make people get over the scandalous relationship and concentrate on America as a nation or basically subconsciously reproached the nation. Mr. Clinton, in this speech built the next strategy: not to fit the stereotype of a man bringing his apologies, not to be miserable, but to show how strong he is by saying these words aloud and therefore to how strong he can be in any other problem. He claimed to apologize, but at the
The example of the current Syria crisis can be used to show the different ways that hard power and soft power are used on the world stage. This is because America, Britain (David Cameron, but not parliament) and France all supported the USAs idea of threatening military action. This shows soft power as the USA persuaded these countries that an intervention/ bombing campaign would be the best option for them, and there was no use of military threats/ economic rewards depending on whether they complied or not. However the USA was also using hard power, as it was threatening Syria with military action if they failed to comply. This combination of hard and soft power can also be known as SMART power.
The poet is saying that people should not talk about war as enthusiastically as it gives the impression that war is glorious. Furthermore, he says that the idea that ’it is sweet and right’ to die for your country is entirely untrue. Through this, we are able to form the opinion that war is not okay because it is a serious thing that carries many negative consequences. In Wilfred Owen’s poem Dolce et Decorum est, the use of similes conveys the harsh reality of war on soldiers as it changes them dramatically and kills the majority of them. In the first two lines of the poem, Owen uses the similes “Bent double like old beggars under sacks, knocked kneed, coughing like hags” to paint a grim picture in readers minds of how the soldiers were.
A defensive war certainly seems justified. Quite often in history we see examples of countries that are susceptible or even attacked by more belligerent neighbours.In recent times Kuwait was attacked by Iraq. This was clearly an act of antagonism and it is impossible to believe that Iraqis had any justifiable reason. The Kuwaitis were forced to defend themselves and because of total unpreparedness of their armed forces had to depend on the help of other countries. Another example of justifiable of war is the Second World War.
He uses these stories to expose the problems of healthcare, education, the economy and the war in Iraq. When he slams outsourcing to foreign countries he does so with a vivid anecdote. His stories make the speech sound more personal and reinforce the conversational nature of the speech. Obama uses the unity word “we” repeatedly throughout the speech. This speech is intended to show that Obama is the leader of the team yet more importantly he is still part of the team.