Iraqi (ex)-President Saddam Hussein: Speech to the Arab Cooperation Council

The late Saddam Hussein gave a speech to the Arab Cooperation Council (1990), suggesting that the Arab nations work together to combat Israel, Zionism, the United States, and other such things. Hussein elaborates upon this point by explaining how the Arab nations are stronger when united, and weaker when divided. Hussein wishes for a pan-Arab alliance in order to combat the seemingly indestructible country of Israel. Hussein is obviously aiming this at the Council he is speaking to, and does so in a formal tone.

Precis

U.S. Secretary of State James Baker: Five-Point Plan

James Baker, in his plan, "Five-Point Plan" states that the United States wishes to aid the peace process in the middle-east. Baker supports this idea by explaining that the U.S.A. understands Israel's and Egypt's goals and points of view, and that the U.S.A. is calling a meeting for peace. The Secretary of State wishes to make clear that the United States does understand what is happening in order to hopefully have a peace process start within the next two weeks following the release of this Five-Point Plan. Baker's audience is quite obviously Egypt and Israel, or more specifically, their leaders and delegates.

2 Precises that are 2 Precise 2 Quit

Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser: Speech at UAR Advanced Air Headquarters

Gamal Abdel Nasser, the president of Egypt during the six-day war, issued a speech (1967), in which he claims that Egypt and the Islamic Alliance should fight an aggressive war against Israel. Nasser uses several techniques to support his point, including invoking pity (i.e. that no one supports the Arabs), using rhetorical questions, pathos, and other common rhetorical techniques. The purpose of his speech is to garner support from Arabs in the Islamic alliance in order to achiever his call to arms against Israel. The Egyptian President aims for this speech to be read by every Arab that is touched by the Islamic alliance.

Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban: Speech at the Special Assembly of the United Nations

Abba Eban, the Israeli prime minister during the period of the six-day war, formulated a speech (1967) in which he defends Israel's right to exist and its right to defend itself from aggressive Arab attack. The support for this point is derived from anti-Israel quotes from leaders of the Arab side and also a brief history of Israel's difficult past (which may have been overly dramatized). Eban's purpose in this speech is to spread the idea that Israel has a right to self-defense from an aggressive act of violence that stems from the Islamic Alliance. Eban establishes a formal relationship with his intended audience of the western world.
----------------
Now playing: MC Hammer - 2 Legit 2 Quit
via FoxyTunes

Summary of Palestinian Liberation Organization's Draft Constitution

In 1963, the Palestinian Liberation Organization wrote a draft Constitution for the potential-future country of Palestine. The Constitution laid out, in a simplistic style using very little logos, pathos, or ethos, its plans. I say that it used very little pathos, ethos, and logos because the Constitution does not explain where its support comes from; it simply lays out the plans with no extra description, support, data, or evidence. In addition to establishing the main Organization, the Constitution also creates 8 sub-committees that are to help the principal organization function. Other important things that the Constitution outlines are the sources of financial backing and representation of Arab countries containing 10,000+ Palestinians in the Organization. The Constitution, however, does not state any of the Organization's goals, talk about a potential state of Palestine, nor address the on-going Israel-Palestine conflict.

4 Precises. 4 Who? 4 You!

The Arab Case for Palestine

In its documented evidence, "The Arab Case for Palestine" (1946), The Arab Office explains that the Arabs of Palestine cannot and shall not be ruled by the Jews. The Office elaborates on this point by explaining why Zionism has had tremendous setbacks on the establishment of an Arab state of Palestine. The Arab Office's goal in creating this document is for Palestine to not be controlled by a Jewish majority in order to have a Muslim majority in power in the future state of Palestine. The formal tone used in the document is probably aimed towards the United Nations.

Anglo-American Committee's Recommendations and Comments

The official Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, whose job it was to examine post-WWII Jews' statuses in Axis countries, issued a list of recommendations and comments, "Recommendations and Comments" (1946), that argued for a new secular state in the Middle East needs to be created. The Committee explains that the Jewish refugees need a place to go, but the Palestinian Arabs need to feel comfortable in their state. The purpose of these recommendations and comments is to help establish laws for the future state of the Palestine in order to create a smooth transition into the new state once Great Britain pulls its troops out of it. The tone is formal and political, as it should be for this type of document.

Conclusion about Future Government of Palestine

The United Nations General Assembly, in their report "Resolution on the Future Fovernment of Palestine (Partition Resolution)" (1947), explained the process of transition into the independence of Palestine. The Assembly did so by explaining every stage between the British pulling out of Palestine to Palestine's independence. The purpose of the report is to help create a smooth transition between Britain-controlled Palestine and Palestinian-controlled Palestine in order to create a peaceful state of Palestine so that the rest of the world can be at ease. The intended audience is the people who currently lived in Palestine, along with Great Britain.

Israel's Declaration of Independence

The State of Israel published their "Proclamation of Independence" (1948), declaring that Israel was now a new, independent, Jewish state. The Nation of Israel bolstered its points by explaining why it had a right to its independence. The purpose of this piece is for other nations to recognize Israel as an autonomous, independent, and sovereign state, in order to avoid wars and conflicts with other nations. Israel intended for the entire world to read its Proclamation of Independence.

----------------
Now playing: Michael Franti & Spearhead - Everybody Ona Move
via FoxyTunes

Precises

The White Paper

The British Government, in its document, "The White Paper" (1939), stated that the Jews should be limited in the proposed state of Palestine. The author elaborates their main point by explaining how the Jews will be limited in terms of immigration, population, property, etc. The purpose of this document is to lay out rules for the future state of Palestine in order to have no conflicts arise between the Jews and Arabs in the future (as if). The intended audience of this article is the general public.

Zionist reaction to the White Paper

The Jewish Agency for Palestine, in its response paper, "Zionist Reaction to the White Paper", explains that it disagrees with many of the proposed British policies for the Jews in Palestine. The agency uses a mainly pathos argument explaining that the laws set out by the British would result in a new ghetto in the home state of the Jews. The obvious purpose of this article is to dissuade the British government of passing the laws explored in the White Paper. The agency's audience thus is the British government.

The Peel Commission Precis

Precis

The Peel Commission, in their public report, “The Palestine Royal Commission: Report”, explains that the Jews and the Palestinians cannot live together in one state, and proposes for this reason that there be a Jewish state and a Palestinian one. The Peel Commission bolsters its point by explaining that the Arabs and the Jews cannot assimilate in one state. The Commission aims for the partition of the potential Jewish state into two, one Jewish and one Arab. The tone established with the intended audience - the general public - is respectful and formal.

Obama's interesting organization

Obama's structure of his speech is quite interesting due to the fact that he uses history and current events to collide with each other to make a semi-disorganized, semi-ordered speech. The disorganization caused by the current events helps show his point that the current events are causing racial differences between Blacks and Whites in America and that we should strive to fix that, shown through the order in the essay.

He starts his essay talking about the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, saying that everyone except the Black slaves were equal. Then he says one of his major points: "to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.", which he uses as a link between the abolishing slavery (something that comes a little after the Constitution in our nation's history) and his campaign. This then leads him into a personal anecdote followed up by a long story of Reverend Wright, after which the topic is changed back to the 1950's, a period well after the abolishment of slavery, the last point in US history where Obama left off in his speech. He then goes back to Wright once more before the conclusion. During the essay, it seems as though Obama is giving the history Black struggle during US history with breaks for Reverend Wright and current issues. The current issues are the ones that cause both the disunity in real life and the breaks in the history in the paper. The actual history is something that unifies the black people together, and that in the future, should unify both blacks and whites together.

Obama ends the essay with a story that takes place in the era of the end of conspicuous black struggle for equality in America, during the 1960's. This works as a good conclusion because it combines previous US history that Obama talks about with the beginning of "our union grow[ing] stronger", something that includes him and his potential future career. Thus Obama, as shown in this conclusion, effectively mixes the chronological order of US History, with breaks of the present (the idea of the union), creating an effect of a shrinking racial difference between blacks and whites. This idea is embedded throughout the essay by the the slow coming together of the black struggle for equality in US history and Obama's present career.

Precis of Obama speech

Barack Hussein Obama, the USA's potential next president, wrote a speech "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union" (2008) stating that Reverend Wright's comments weren't entirely false and that the blacks and whites of America need to work together. Obama illustrates his point by explaining why we need unity in our country and telling the audience that Reverend Wright had the right (haha, I made a pun) bases for his ideas, but the details weren't thought out logically. Mr. Obama's purpose is to convince people he wasn't wrong in associating himself with Rev. Wright in order to gain more votes/the trust of more of the people of the United States of America. The speech is aimed towards people who are doubtful of the actions of Barack Obama in associating himself with Reverend Wright and also both black and white eligible voters in the US.

Clinton Vs. Palin speeches (redone)

The two sets of remarks prepared by Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, both women, have interesting differences in style and writing, however this essay shall concentrate on the former more than the latter.

Hillary Clinton tends to use pathos, attacks on the republicans, and a bit of logos as her main points. Her idea of pathos is becoming close to the common citizen, even becoming the common citizen's friend. A great example of this can be found within the first page when Mrs. Clinton describes her trip around the country: "You taught me so much, you made me laugh, and... you even made me cry. You allowed me to become part of your lives. And you became part of mine." Thus, one of the appeals of choosing Hillary Clinton as president would have been the pathos idea that she is a good representative of the people of the United States. Along with the copious amounts of pathos Mrs. Clinton uses, she also uses some logos, or logical arguments, against the Republican Party, or more specifically, John McCain. These arguments she probably deems as true, hence why she endorsed Barack Obama, can be found on the fourth page of her notes. "More economic stagnation... and less affordable health care. More high gas prices... and less alternative energy." are just a few of the things she says that "four more years... of the last eight years" would bring us, accusing McCain of being just like Bush. This is the third of Mrs. Clinton's strategies, attacks. A good example of this can be found as in the fourth paragraph, where she states: "I haven't spent the past 35 years [...] to see another Republican in the White House squander the promise of our country and the hopes of out people." This is funny, because 35 years ago, Barack Obama would be in his teens, so either Hillary Clinton is saying she's been preparing Obama since he was a child to be in office, or a direct attack on McCain.

Palin's techniques are quite different however. She uses about as much pathos as logos, again with little ethos. Most of her pathos is when she talks about McCain's past experience, such as when she tells of an anecdote of Mr. McCain's experiences in Vietnam, or when she describes her family, a subject where emotion is appropriate. Another thing that Palin does is address the attacks sent from Hillary Clinton, without attacking Obama as Clinton attacked McCain. This can be found when Palin says: "There are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change.", telling the reader that McCain will not be like the previous president, contrary to Clinton's beliefs. Palin also appeals to women across the country. For example she states: "This is America, and every woman can walk through every door of opportunity." It is peculiar that although both Palin and Clinton are women, only Palin appeals to the women listening to her speech.

However, there are also some points/audiences that both women address. One of them is autistic children or children with special needs. Clinton addresses this by connecting with one of her citizen-friends during her trip around the country, and Palin has a child with down syndrome, which she talks about.

My letter to the President of the U.S. of A.

Hello Mr. President,

First of all, say hello to the Missus for me. After all, from what we’ve seen from this election, women are starting to gain more and more political power these days. However, that’s not the only reason I’m writing to you. There are many issues wracking the very core of this country.

Two good examples are gay marriage and abortion. Both of these issues are greatly opposed by religion. Now, the main argument against gay marriage is that it does not qualify as “traditional” marriage, which is used as traditional standard and can be found in the Bible as the union between a man and a woman. Now, in the past, whether or not gay marriage was allowed went according to each state’s Supreme Court ruling. However, logically, by the Constitution, a federal document, there is an idea of “separation of church and state”, thus making the idea of “traditional marriage” invalid. Additionally, the Constitution gives an argument that people can connect with on an emotional level. It states that men “have certain unalienable rights” which are “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. The last one mentioned is the most important, for it puts forward an idea that everyone has a right to be happy. This is not so with gay couples in most states at the moment. Instead, these couples must suffer while their heterosexual friends get married year after year. As president, do you really want to see 5% of your population suffer every year instead of passing a law that would make those 5% happy?

Another great example is abortion. It is so big, in fact, and there are so many views on it, that the best course of action is to allow each family to establish its own laws about it. Because is the government allowed to interfere with people’s private lives? Unless the people are breaking the law, then no, it isn’t allowed to. Additionally, the government should have no ability to ban abortions or gay marriage due to the fact that these are moral, emotional, religious, and extremely personal issues, on which opinions vary greatly, and I believe that each person should do as they wish. Then again, I am an anarcho-communist.

Another great example of a big issue in our country is social security. Social security was originally created by the founding fathers for the time period, not taking into account the fact that people’s lifespans would gradually increase over several centuries. Nowadays, this is threatening to cause huge problems as there will soon be more people over retirement age than ones under who can support them monetarily. Thus a simple solution from now on should be created: paying social security taxes should be optional, and once you retire, you get what you paid to the government before retiring plus perhaps some extra interest, somewhat like bonds. The advantage of this is that it’s a simple solution and it saves the system. So Mr. President, it’s up to you, do you want to fix this mess up easily or do you want to see the Social Security system every year sink deeper and deeper in debt?

Thus ends my letter to you, dear President of each and every one of us. I’m sure you can handle all these issues, and if you can’t, just think of my suggestions. The real question is not “How do I fix this?” but “Do I fix this or that?”, as at every point in life, we must make compromises; however, you Mr. President have the added responsibility of a nation. Therefore there is some pressure to do well, but with the previous president to be compared to, even a wrong decision can look good.