The United States of America, the friendly giant as most countries call it. When the U.S sees smaller countries being deemed down and bullied by other communist and cultural threatening countries the U.S is by their side, no matter what. Due to the fact that the U.S doesn't want communism spreading, it is our duty to help those that are defenseless. But how much help is too much? Too much help could mean they want something from you, in this case, being another country because it will either benefit them or it's going to remove them from a situation that won't be beneficial. Paul Potter simply put that into context in which why the U.S has to get involved in this type of situation or an idea of why. In his speech called “The Incredible War” during an antiwar march in Washington on April 17, 1965, Paul made some points that …show more content…
A country that has freedom embedded in all of its documents. That sounds more like the U.S is trying to invade Vietnam and take all their freedoms from the people. “Not even the President can say that we are defending freedom in Vietnam.” That should tell you more than what we are doing in Vietnam, the president can't even make up his mind of what we are doing there it's more of we have mixed feeling is the seats of congress. They are telling the people of the united stated that we are doing this for you but it doesn't reflect off the actions in Vietnam. It has brought the feeling of doubting the government to the people of the U.S. “ It has led to even more vigorous governmental efforts to control information, to manipulate the press and pressure and persuade the public through distorted or downright false documents such as the White Paper on Vietnam.” Americans need to act and not be defined as the ones trying to reach our freedom by the destruction of other
Chris Appy’s s American Reckoning is a book-length essay on the Vietnam War and how it changed the way Americans think of ourselves and our foreign policy. This is required reading for anyone interested in foreign policy and America’s place in the world, showing how events influence attitudes, which turn to influence events.
Lawrence’s purpose in writing this book was concise and to the point. In recent history, due to the fall of the Soviet bloc, new information has been made available for use in Vietnam. As stated in the introduction, “This book aims to take account of this new scholarship in a brief, accessible narrative of the Vietnam War… It places the war within the long flow of Vietnamese history and then captures the goals and experiences of various governments that became deeply embroiled in the country during the second half of the twentieth century” (Lawrence, 3.) This study is not only about the American government and how they were involved in the Vietnam conflict, but highlights other such countries as France, China, and the Soviet Union. Lawrence goes on to say that one of his major goals in writing this book is to examine the American role in Vietnam within an international context (Lawrence, 4.) Again, this goes to show that the major purpose of Lawrence’s study included not only ...
As stronger nations exercise their control over weaker ones, the United States try to prove their authority, power and control over weaker nations seeing them as unable to handle their own issues thereby, imposing their ideology on them. And if any of these weaker nations try to resist, then the wrath of the United States will come upon them. In overthrow the author Stephen Kinzer tells how Americans used different means to overthrow foreign government. He explains that the campaign & ideology of anti- communism made Americans believe that it was their right and historical obligation to lead forces of good against those of iniquity. They also overthrew foreign government, when economic interest coincided with their ideological ones (kinzer.215). These factors were the reasons behind America’s intervention in Iran, Guatemala, South Vietnam and Chile to control and protect multinational companies as well as the campaign against communism with little or no knowledge about these countries.
Rhetorical Analysis of President Roosevelt's Pearl Harbor Speech. The Pearl Harbor address to the nation is probably one of the most famous speeches made throughout history. In this essay, I will evaluate the rhetorical effectiveness of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's famous speech and show that his speech is a successful argument for the United States of America. I will focus on the speaker's credibility, all the different appeals made throughout the speech, as well as the purpose and the audience of the speech.
The Vietnam War was a vicious conflict predominately between the United States and Australia against The Viet Cong and The North Vietnamese. Initially the public supported the war, however the American president of the time, Lyndon B. Johnson, exaggerated how easy and worldwide the war was to attract further support. When he called for “more flags” to be represented in South Vietnam only the Philippines, the Republic of South Korea, Thailand, Australia, and New Zealand indicated a willingness to contribute some form of military aid. By doing this “it enabled Johnson to portray the developing war as international to show it must be dealt with and gain support,” (Hastings, 2003). The outcome of the Vietnam War was ensured because the governments of the United States and Australia could not maintain their publics’ support due to the popular culture of the time. This was because much of the war was shown on television or other popular culture, so events like the Battle of Long Tan could be seen by families and people of all ages in their living rooms; this was the first time they could see how bad a war can actually be.
and its allies and the group of nations led by the Soviet Union. Direct military
On the morning of December 7, 1941, the United States was attacked for the first time on home soil by the Japanese. Esteemed former president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, spoke to congress the day after the Pearl Harbor attack, in what would be his most renowned speech and one of the best speeches in American history. He spoke with the purpose of persuading his audience, the congress, to go to war with Japan. The tone of the speech is melancholic but forthright, which reveals the pain and sorrow felt by citizens and the need for an urgent response.
Though out history, American has had its hand in conflict with other countries. Some of those conflicts have turned out into wars. Looking back at America’s “track record” with war, America has a worthy past of having its citizen’s support. Obviously the two World Wars we not controversial. The United States in the Korean War was criticized, fairly, for its strategy, but the need to defend South Korea was never questioned. In only the Vietnam War was the United States’ very participation criticized. This is such a gigantic change with prior wars that it bears study as to why it happened, and better yet, should have it happened. This paper will discuss the United States’ involvement in the Vietnam War, by asking the simple question, Should have the Untied States’ gotten involved into the first place. This paper will prove that in fact, America should have not gotten involved with the Vietnam War.
William Pitt talks in a way that persuades people to believe him and actually feel what he is saying. In his speech about slave trade and why it should be abolished, he uses multiple strategies in order to get his point across. In the beginning of his speech he uses a series of rhetorical questions “If then we feel… If we view… If we shudder” (Safire 657.) he uses these questions in order to amend the motion on abolishing slave trade. William Pitt the younger believed that slave trade should be abolished because it is not advantageous to Great Britain it actually is most destructive and ruins the economy by “supplying our plantations with negroes” and it goes against the first principle of justice.
Throughout history theorists tried to capture all aspects of warfare, propose new ways and means to apply the conceptions, and even conjecture how best to terminate wars. Carl Von Clausewitz in his masterpiece ‘On War’ conceptualized the nature of war on land and linked relationship between warfare and politics in concise ideals. The visionary theorist Giulio Douhet shifted the view of war in 1921 when he published The Command of the Air, where he introduced war through the concepts of airpower. This essay aims to contrast the theories of Clausewitz’s conception of land warfare with Douhet’s conception of air warfare because the characteristics and environmental end states changed with the introduction of airpower.
“is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?”. Taken place at the revolutionary war era that people feared that we could lose our independence to Great Britain. People of this time were more focused their attention on the war then their own problems. Patrick Henry really expresses the technique of pathos. He shows a lot of this in his famous speech, “Speech to the Virginia convention”. The famous speech of Patrick Henry shows emotion that came upon the audience and tells what happened during the war. The audience that were there for the speech tells how they were feeling when they were hearing this powerful message. “Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called
Rhetorical Analysis of Woodrow Wilson's War Address to Congress. With the status of the country’s belligerency heavily in question, an. apprehensive President Woodrow Wilson prepared to request from an unmotivated and unprepared country, a declaration of war against Germany. After exerting every attempt possible to retain the peace and honor of the United States, the President was finally forced to choose between the two. in which he opted for the latter (Seymour 26).
The speech “War Message” by former president Woodrow Wilson is one of the most memorable speeches of all time. He is able to capture the audience’s attention and really make them listen with the help of many rhetorical elements. Woodrow Wilson is by far one of the best presidents this nation has ever seen and also one of the best speakers of all time. The magnitude of this speech and what it is about gives it such an appeal without even trying. The rhetorical elements of this text such as ethos, pathos, and logos are what gives this speech its credibility, its powerfulness, and its persuasiveness.
In Kirby Dick’s influential documentary “The Invisible War,” filmmaker Kirby Dick uses pathos, ethos and logos to gain information and supplementary details to make his point that there is an epidemic of rape in throughout the DOD (Department of Defense) and the fact that military sexual trauma (MST) in the United States military goes unheard, mostly unpunished and needs to be addressed at a higher level.
Amongst military theorists and practitioners who studied war, its origin and implications, Carl von Clausewitz assumes a place among the most prominent figures. With his book On War, he demonstrated his capability to provide thorough historical analysis and conclusions of the conflicts in which he was engaged, and as a philosopher he reflected about all encompassing aspects of war. Today, Western armies conduct modern warfare in a dynamic environment composed of flexible and multiple threats in which civilians form a substantial part. Studying Clausewitz provides current military and political leadership useful insights to understand twenty-first century warfare. He explains the nature of war, provides an analytical tool to understand the chaos of warfare, and he argues for well educated and adaptable leadership capable of creative thinking. Although he died before his work was complete, his writing style was ambiguous and unclear at some moments, and current technology reduced some of his tactics obsolete, his work still arouses and inspires military and political strategists and analysts.