Wednesday, October 15, 2008
The Rhetoric of War
How have past presidents or political figures called for war? What kind of language have they used to promote or argue for war? How about those who have argued or spoken for peace? Compare contrast the language and use of tropes between peace rhetoric & war rhetoric. Use the current conflict or one from the past it you are more comfortable with history!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
Presidents use rhetoric when expressing their wanting of war for our country. President Bush once said “America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people.” He means after September 11th, we (Americans) will not seek permission from anyone to defend ourselves. He uses this language because it appeals to people that believe in freedoms and defending our country. If he had plainly said “We are going to war with Iraq,” then I believe that there would not have been the acceptance of the war that there was in the end of 2001 and beginning of 2002. People pushed for the war in the beginning because they were “told” that they were defending their country, not going to war for the next 6 years.
With peace, people are persuading against war and confrontation. Agatha Christie once said, “One is left with the horrible feeling now that war settles nothing; that to win a war is as disastrous as to lose one.” This is how Americans are beginning to feel about the war in Iraq. They know now, no matter what the outcome of the war is, a win or lose; it is still a travesty for the American army and the American people.
At the beginning, many people believed that George W. Bush was right about the war and that we needed to defend ourselves; however, when 6 years passes by, people become quite upset. This is mostly because we were there (in Iraq or Afghanistan) for 6 years and have not captured our target, Osama Bin Laden. George Bush got the American public to believe that we NEEDED to go into Iraq and Afghanistan, while it wasn’t even considered necessary by Senators and Representatives.
However, whether it be war or peace, rhetoric is used to persuade other politicians and the American public. George Bush used it to start the war and convince everyone that it was necessary for our country’s freedom and security. Agatha Christie, one great English novelist believed that with war, there is not a winner. People that listened to President Bush now realize the Agatha Christie is right when she says there is no winner in a war; just casualities.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agatha_Christie
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/g/george_w_bush.html
http://www.wisdomquotes.com/cat_peace.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush
As a result of the terrorists attacks on September 11, 2001 President Bush thought the only course of action agianst them was to defeat them. "We either deal with terrorism and this extremism abroad, or we deal with it when it comes to us." said General John Vines. He meant that the United States should go over seas and defeat the terrorist to fix the problem of terrorism. From my readings of the speeches given on the war in Iraq, George Bush's language seemed that the war was neccesary to solve the problem of terrorism in the United States and in Iraq.
In the United States today there are many veterans that are against the war in Iraq. Many veterans have protested with signs and arguements towards George Bush. They have argued that the terrorist are clearly not a threat to the United States citizens. Peace and War Rhetoric are different in many different ways. For example, peace rhetoric seem more passive they are implying the question why used by the Veterans. War rhetoric, used by George Bush, is different from peace rhetoric because it has a more of an aggressive tone.
T. Hearst ™
In my recent studies, we have talked about how presidents have called for war. Our most recent study was on Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War. Lincoln didn’t want to start the war so he used intellectual tactics by sending food and supplies to Fort Sumter, which enraged the Confederates, who fired shots initiating the start of the Civil War. Lincoln didn’t want to be held responsible for starting the war but he used his wit and language to cause the beginning of the Civil War.
There are two different types of rhetoric when dealing with war, peace rhetoric and war rhetoric. War rhetoric is any kind of media or literature that promotes or supports war efforts. Wartime rhetoric can even be split into two types, which are anti-war and pro-war rhetoric. Peace rhetoric is completely opposite of war rhetoric. “Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without.” This quote is a good example of peace rhetoric because it explains where peace comes from and that you can’t find peace if you don’t have peace within yourself. Both of these are used today inorder to promote war and to promote peace.
-V.Gobble
Presidents, in the past and present, have had a very difficult job when it came down to war. Many people are anti-war while others think that war is the answer to many problems. However, presidents use rhetoric to argue and to promote war. While others use rhetoric to speak for peace.
One example that we have seen in our time period is the war in Iraq. When President Bush decided to go to war with Iraq after September 11, he said "I made a commitment to the American people: This nation will not wait to be attacked again. We will defend our freedom. We will take the fight to the enemy." We can clearly see that Bush's way of promoting the war is by telling Americans that we need to defend our country before they do anything worse. He speaks to people as though to make them worry about the sake of not only their family but also the country. He tells them he has a made PROMISE to protect America and that is what he is going to do.
An Example of rhetoric on anti-war is seen in Barack Obama's speech. He states that "This war diminishes our security, our standing in the world, our military, our economy, and the resources that we need to confront the challenges of the 21st century". We see that he tells us the truth about how the war is affecting Americans. He uses truth and the knowledge of what people are going through to try to make peace and end the war in Iraq.
This is how presidents and presidential candidates us rhetoric to try to presuade us to choose on either side.
--Cindy Flores :)
In my recent research and readings i have discovered that presidential figures that called for war avoid being the one that starts the war if at all possible. They do this because they do not want to be remembered as a president that started a war. When President Woodrow Wilson called for war, he did this also. He once quoted, "Neutrality is a negative word. It does not express what America ought to feel. We are not trying to keep out of trouble; we are trying to preserve the foundations on which peace may be rebuilt." He was using language and rhetoric to persuade Americans to see war as a positive thing. By saying that neutrality is not positive and using the argument that war was the way to perserve the union, it portrayed war as the positive option.
The opposing argument to that is from people who argue that peace is the only way. Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, "Peace cannot be achieved through violence, it can only be attained through understanding." He was explaining that peace can't work if you have to use violence because it only causes more violence. If you work to understand onc another, that is when peace will be reached. He used language as a means of persuation against war.
Jimmy Carter quoted, "The decision to attack the entire nation [of Yugoslavia] has been counterproductive, and our destruction of civilian life has now become senseless and excessively brutal. He was explaining that war can become just a killing spree with no real point. He was saying that innocent people were dying, and made the point that it may be senseless to be that brutal. He used rhetoric in a way that played on peoples emotions, to convince them that peace was the only safe and right way to handle things. He described how horrible war was, attempting to convince people through words. In the case of war rhetoric, as i explained through Woodrow Wilson's quote above, the people in favor of it attempt to make it look like a positive thing. They use the argument that it is how we as a countrty we will persever our freedoms.
Sources:
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_about/peace
www.brainyquotes.com
-Ashley Burchel!-
In many of my other classes we have learned how some presidents have proposed war. Some of these presidents consist of Abraham Lincoln and President George W. Bush. Abraham Lincoln called for the Civil War with the South and Bush called for the Iraqi War after the September, 11 attacks. Although neither one really wanted a war they both are somewhat held responsible for them.
When there is a war there are two types of rhetoric: War Rhetoric and Peace Rhetoric. War rhetoric is language that promotes a war to happen. This rhetoric can be split into two types: pro-war and anti-war. Peace war rhetoric is language that does not promote war. This language can be used when trying to end a war.
Sam Everhart ™
In President Wilson's "Message to the Congress", he started out by explaining how the German submarines were sinking vessels. All of the descriptions about Germany were negative and reasons why American should go to war with Germany. The use of language in President Wilson's speech sounded very determined to defeat the Germans in war, but also sympathy for the deaths that had been caused by the Germans. Wilson called this moment an opportunity to fight for what America had believed in. "America is priviledged to spend her blood and her might for the principles that gave her birth and happiness and the peace which she has treasured."
In Norris' "Opposition to Wilson's War Message", he wanted everyone to reconsider about entering the war because of the consequences. Although Norris was oppposed to the war, he will still be loyal to the nation if it did go to war with Germany. "All of my energy and all of my power will be behind our flag in carrying it on to victory." He tried to avoid this war by giving other options such as his third option, "Third, we could, while denouncing them both as illegal, have acquiesced in them both and thus remian neutral with both sides." The language he uses sounds very pleading to keep America from war because of the negative effects it will have afterwards.
The similarities of language and the use of tropes in war and peace rhetoric are that each side gives reasons to go to war, or not to go to war. The language is both persuasive and the tropes include supporting details for their cause.
The contrasts are that war rhetoric uses language of encouragment to go to war, and peace rhetorics disapprove the war. The tropes of a war rhetoric shows victory among the nation, but the peace rhetoric shows the dire consequences. Wilson's speech, "But the right is more precious than peace , and we shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest to our hearts."
Norris' speech, "We are pledged by the President, so far as he can pledge to us, to make this fair, free, and happy land of ours the same shambles and bottomless pit of horror that we have seeen in Europe today."
*T. Xiong*
Thoughout history, war has been part of politics. Especially in Amercia, presidential and major political figures have been at the center of conflicts over war. Some of these have argued for war, seeing it as a necessity to protect our country. Others, however, have strongly opposed it and advocated for peace. Each of these figures use rhetoric to persuade Americans to agree with their cause.
One of the most recent examples of war rhetoric was George W. Bush's statements about the war on terrorism. As a result of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, he used the fragility of the country to convince many Americans that we must go to war with terrorists. In response to the attacks, he said, "After the chaos and carnage of September 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers." This appeals to Americans because many family members and close friends were killed in the attacks. By using this statement, Bush calls for revenge for these people, which appeals to the tender hearts of those who lost loved ones. He also gave the country a sense of unity, bringing about an enormous increase in patriotism.
However, there have also been those who have strived for peace. In 1961, John F. Kennedy stated, "Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind." By using extremities, such as the end of mankind, Kennedy shows exactly how important peace is in the world. He makes Americans feel as if there will be consequences if they do not work for peace in the country. Therefore, his use of rhetoric makes people want to achieve peace in the United States so they will be able to continue living their comfortable lives.
www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/g/george_w_bush
www.quotegarden.com/war
-e. styers!
Throughout history, war rhetoric and peace rhetoric have always been present dealing with politics. Some presidents agreed and would still agree that war is essential for America to survive. However, there are also others that agree with the complete opposite that peace is the advocate that holds America together.
An statement made by George W. Bush promoting war was, "We will bring the terrorists to justice; or we will bring justice to the terrorists. Either way, justice will be done." By saying this, it is clear that Bush is a person, that firmly believes in 'justice.' You get what you deserve. The persuasion of his language appealed more to those who lost family members, and loved ones in the terrorist attacks of 9/11.
On the other hand, some presidents and presidential figures advocated peace. As stated by Herbert Clark Hoover, "Peace is not made at the Council table or by treaties, but in the hearts of men." By this statement, it is logical to believe, that without peace this country would founder.
In past times, as in todays time, America has grown to become a more "unsafe" place, however, people see if their is no peace, consequences are sure to be faced. It is essential that America grow as one, without the continuation of differences, and come together for world peace.
--ashley bayse. :)
Throughout history, war rhetoric and peace rhetoric have always been present dealing with politics. Some presidents agreed and would still agree that war is essential for America to survive. However, there are also others that agree with the complete opposite that peace is the advocate that holds America together.
A statement made by George W. Bush promoting war was, "We will bring the terrorists to justice; or we will bring justice to the terrorists. Either way, justice will be done." By saying this, it is clear that Bush is a person, that firmly believes in 'justice.' You get what you deserve. The persuasion of his language appealed more to those who lost family members, and loved ones in the terrorist attacks of 9/11.
On the other hand, some presidents and presidential figures advocated peace. As stated by Herbert Clark Hoover, "Peace is not made at the Council table or by treaties, but in the hearts of men." By this statement, it is logical to believe, that without peace this country would founder.
In past times, as in todays time, America has grown to become a more "unsafe" place, however, people see if their is no peace, consequences are sure to be faced. It is essential that America grow as one, without the continuation of differences, and come together for world peace.
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/presquotes1.html
--ashley bayse. :)
THIS ONE (CORRECT ONE)
Past presidents have used propaganda and scare tactics to promote war. For example, James K. Polk used propaganda to get elected as president that promoted war. His slogan was 54 40 or Fight trying to scare Russian into giving the US the Oregon Territory. Another example was Harry Truman used scare tactics so he could bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He scared America by reminding them about Pearl Harbor and it could happen again if they don’t end the war immediately.
Also, presidents use sneaky tactics to argue against war. For example, Lincoln sent a ship to Fort Sumter with supplies, knowing the confederates would stop the ship from reaching Fort Sumter. He did this because he didn’t want to start a war with the Confederates.
Malcom King Ivery
A leader's strongest weapon when arguing for war or peace is their rhetoric. Franklin Rossevelt addressed the nation after the attack on Pearl harbor.
"Yesterday, December 7, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy - The United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan...As Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense...With confidence in our armed forces - with the unbounded determination of our people - we will gain the inevitable triumph - so help us God." -President F.D. Roosevelt - 8th December 1941
He used a trope to gain the confidence of the american citizens in fighting the evil of Japan. Most Presidents use this strategy when declaring war, their main goal is to gain the support of Americans. Most of the time they gain this trust by conjuring a fear that if the enimie isnt beaten then something more horrible may happen.
When it comes to peace, political leaders also use rhetoric to convey their ideas.
It is clear that global challenges must be met with an emphasis on peace, in harmony with others, with strong alliances and international consensus. Imperfect as it may be, there is no doubt that this can best be done through the United Nations.. not merely to preserve peace but also to make change, even radical change, without violence.-Jimmy Carter
President Carter inspired Americans that peace was possible. He stated clear ways to make peace happen and he supported a organization that aided in reaching that goal. The use of words like harmony, change and peace help to illustrate how the world would be like without violence.
-emerson jones-->
War has always been a controversial topic. In 1793, France and Britian ingaged in war. America had a defensive alliance with France and when American heard about the war, they questioned whether they should stay rue to the treaty or stay neutral. George Washington stayed level headed and decided that the war needed to be avoided at all costs. He understood that many people wanted to stay true to the alliance but he knew that America was a young nation and it was best to not intervene. Many Jeffersonians argued that America owed France their freedom and they needed to pay their debts. The also talk about how they did not agree with their foe Britian.
When calling for war, most people speak with confidence in their country. They know that they are fighting for what is right and so they are eager for war. It is evident that when speaking for peace the country is cautious about whether or not it is right to fight.
From George Washington to George Bush, the call of war has always been a very controversial issue.
Wether a president has been pro-war or anti-war, they have always had to use a lot of precisive language in order to make the people think what they are doing is right.
Most presidents have tried to avoid starting war becuase that's not a good way to remember and they've done well. President Lincoln used bribery to get the confederate states to make the first shot, Prsident Wilson was clever enough to keep us out of World War one for 3 years.
When President Bush called for the war on Iraq he said this war is what we need in order to end the suffering of millions of people."I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace." This is an excellent example of the way presidents and political figures use tropes. He makes the people feel that in order to achieve peace, balance, and harmony, we must have go through soem hard times.
On the other hand, President kennedy believed that peace was very imporant too. "Peace is a daily, a weekly, a monthly
process, gradually changing opinions, slowly eroding old barriers, quietly building new structures." I think what this means is that peace cannot be achieved so soon, it takes a while sometime a lifetime to achieve it but when we do, one must work hard and never stop believing that we can do it.
*http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/john_f_kennedy.html
-Uroosa Naveen Haider
In Franklin D. Roosevelt's War Message that was given on December 7, 1941 asking Congress to Declare War on Japan, he speaks confidently and factually in order to ensure that the American people understand the need for revenge. Roosevelt Sais:
“No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory. I believe I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make very certain that this form of treachery shall never endanger us again.
Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger.”
This allows people to feel as if he only wants what is in their best interest.
Peace rhetoric speaks to people’s emotions and often gives a sort of pros and cons platform.
When speaking about the problems caused by war, John F. Kennedy once said that, “Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to mankind.”
In Franklin D. Roosevelt's War Message that was given on December 7, 1941 asking Congress to Declare War on Japan, he speaks confidently and factually in order to ensure that the American people understand the need for revenge. Roosevelt Sais:
“No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory. I believe I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make very certain that this form of treachery shall never endanger us again.
Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger.”
This allows people to feel as if he only wants what is in their best interest.
Peace rhetoric speaks to people’s emotions and often gives a sort of pros and cons platform.
When speaking about the problems caused by war, John F. Kennedy once said that, “Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to mankind.”
Chanteia Sutherland
Winston Churchill said these words at the House of Commons before WW2: “Outside, the storms of war may blow and the lands may be lashed with the fury of its gales, but in our own hearts this Sunday morning there is peace. Our hands may be active, but our consciences are at rest.”
This means that even though war is hard and it hurts, it is the right thing to do. Churchill used this speech to spur Americans into action and clear their consciences. This rhetoric targets moral and has a somewhat smoother, calmer tone.
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."
This quote means that war ultimately hurts. It takes money from the poor and puts in into killing people. This rhetoric uses a more sharp, blamefull tone
I thinks it’s ironic that war rhetoric is less harsh than peace rhetoric
smorris
http://www.quotedb.com/categories/war-and-peace
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=878
Presidents use rhetoric to persuade the country to think their way about going to war. President Bush said, "Terrorist can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America." ( Post 9/11 speech). He is stating to the American people that even though these terrorists have wrecked our buildings In America, they have not intimidated America itself (pertaining to the people).
If we travel back in time to the "Cold war". The entire war was based on rhetoric and persuasion between a democracy and a communist way of life. Back then the thought of "The Red Scare" and the trials being held for thought to be communist was a time full of rhetoric about war.
Pretty much every president that has had to face the issue of war has tried one way or another to exercise rhetoric to bring the American people to his side.
Most of the language they used and still use today in the Iraq war are words like terror, fate, weapons of mass destruction, and economic downfall. These , in the end, are all to persuade the American people to believe it is justified into going to war.
sources:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMiqEUBux3o
-J.Baranowksi
For my post I am going to use President Wilson’s War Message and George W. Norris’s Opposition speech. War and peace are complete opposites however they both use tropes and different usage of language to convey what they believe and persuade someone else to believe as they do.
In President Wilson’s speech (War Speech) he begins by introducing his reasons for going to war. He talks about the Germans sinking our boats and attacking us for no apparent reason. When before the intentional sinking of the boat occurred, Wilson stood by his claim for neutrality. Therefore, in Wilson’s speech he seems upset about the occurrence and determined to get back at Germany.
In George Norris’s opposition speech (Peace Speech)he addressed the country’s reason to go to war and he also talked about the consequences to the war to try to persuade the people to go against it. He also sort of blames the cause of the German attack on ourselves. He says that if we had stood completely neutral to begin with, instead of helping Britain, than the attacks wouldn’t have taken place. Though he does all this he does it in a respectable manner. Norris says that despite his belief that he will stand behind his countries decision.
L. Gonzalez
(Late)
http://americanrhetoric.com/speeches/wilsonwarmessage.htm <---- Wilson’s War Message
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/doc19.htm <----George W. Norris’s Opposition speech
When presidents call for war, they use rhetoric that convinces American Citizens to want to go to war also. President Bush once said "America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." Here he uses the mushroom cloud to represent an Atomic Bomb. By doing this he is trying to put fear of death into Americans. If fearful of death, Americans will push for a way to stop death, and this way was war.
Anti war speakers will try to convince their audience that there are many methods to not go to war.
--Ralph Woods--
Post a Comment