Jesse Reyes
Ramesh Pokharel
ENGL 1304
6 October 2014
Obama on Syria Rhetorical Analysis The night before the anniversary of 9/11 in 2013, Barack Obama delivered a speech to the United States of America on the subject of Syria’s inhumane use of chemical weapons on its own citizens. The United States’ intelligence analysts estimated that more than 1,400 civilians were killed due to the chemical warheads that were launched on the area right outside of Damascus. In President Barack Obama’s address to the nation on Syria, he attempts to persuade the American people to support his plan of a targeted air strike on Syria. By describing the victims of Syria, giving reasons for the inhumanity of the Syrian government, and reinforcing his credibility,
…show more content…
His dramatic diction when referring to the Bashar al-Assad regime depicts the Syrian government as a wicked monster, which is exactly what the President wishes to do in order to more easily convince his citizens. Words such as “oppressive” and “gruesome” are only some of the many emotionally appealing words that President Barack Obama incorporates in his argumentative speech (Obama par 2 and 4). Also, only a couple of minutes into the speech, President Barack Obama uses vivid imagery to depict the innocent people of Syria who were unfortunately killed by poisonous gases that the Syrian government deployed themselves. President Obama ensures that his audience feels sickened and hatred towards the Bashar al-Assad regime by including detailed descriptions of the victims. He describes the Syrian “men, women, [and] children lying in rows, killed by poison gas” and those that were “foaming at the mouth, gasping for breath” (Obama par 3). The most powerful image that President Barack Obama incorporates is that of a “father clutching his dead children, imploring them to get up and walk” (Obama par 3). This image, as well as the others, undoubtedly causes the audience to feel sympathy towards the Syrian victims and definitely loathing of the Syrian regime for doing something so …show more content…
President Barack Obama begins to use logos when he talks about the 1997 “international agreement prohibiting the use of chemical weapons” (Obama par 5). He moves on to assert that the Syrian government’s action was “not only a violation of international law, [but] also a danger to [national] security” (Obama par 10). His main point to support his assertion that the chemical attack is a danger to the American people and the world is that if no action is taken to deter the Syrian regime then other “tyrants” will not hesitate to use poisonous gas as a weapon as well (Obama par 11). The President’s logic is reasonable and therefore is effective in persuading the audience. President Obama does not try to justify his position on the topic with faulty logic. He makes it clear that the reason for taking action against the Bashar al-Assad regime is to prevent what happened to the Syrian victims to happen to any more people of the world. The majority of the audience is effectively swayed to view involvement in Syria as necessary in order to preserve national
In the “George Bush’ Columbia” speech, George W. Bush used a variety of ways in order to make his mark and effectively assemble his dialog. One of the most prominent strategies Mr. Bush used was his sentence structure. He did a great job shaping his speech by initially addressing the problem at hand. He first stated what happened, who it happened to, and gave his condolences to the ones who didn’t make it, along with their families. Mr. Bush also seemed sincere throughout his speech as he made sure to mention each hero apart of the crew. Another technique George W. Bush displayed was the diction and tone he used while delivering the speech. From listening to the audio last week, I remember the passion behind Bush’s words and the sincerity
Since the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration has been calling every citizens and every nations to support his Middle East policy. Nonetheless, the U.S. has been involved in the middle-east struggle for more than half of the century, wars were waged and citizens were killed. Yet, political struggles and ideological conflicts are now worse than they were under Clinton’s presidency. As “President’s Address to the Nation” is a speech asking everybody to support the troops to keep fighting in Iraq, I, as an audience, am not persuaded at all because of his illogical fallacy in the arguments. In this essay, I will analyze how and what are the illogical fallacies he uses in the speech.
43rd President of the United States, George Bush, in his speech, “9/11 Address to the Nation” addresses the nation about the day of September 11, 2001. Bush’s purpose is to convey the events of September 11, 2001 and what was and will be done about them. He adopts a serious yet somber tone in order to appeal to the strong and emotional side of the public and to his listeners around the world.
Throughout the speech, the Former President George W Bush strives to empower Americans by instructing them to remain resolute, but to “go back to [their] lives and routines”. He uses the personal pronoun we and the common pronoun us repeatedly to indicate that the people of the United States, who either saw the event on television or experienced this event firsthand, were and still are involved in this national tragedy. He implements this emotional appeal into his speech to involve all Americans--people living in the United States of America, regardless of their ethnicity, race, or culture, and to acknowledge that the American people have endured this together, and that they will continue to advance after this event with stronger resolve, stronger than ever. In addition, he implements personification to motivate and empower the American people. “Our nation, this generation, will lift a dark threat of violence from our people and our future” (Bush, 2001). “This generation”, again a synonym for the American people, with its unwavering resolve, will fight for its freedom persistently. He intimates that the future of America and of democratic freedom is in the hands of the American people: that the American people have the power to control their fate. The next sentence leads into America’s “philanthropically” democratic nature: “We will rally the world to this cause, by our efforts and by our courage” (Bush, 2001). This statement has been followed up by action only a few years later, when the United States intervened in the Iraqi War, Libyan Revolution, and even more civil wars to ensure the freedom of citizens from dictatorships, which in Islāmic nations, were militant groups, like the Hamas and Taliban. Lastly, the president utilized anaphora, specifically a tripartite structure, by affirming that the American people “will not tire”, “will not falter”, and “will not fail”. He implies that the American people will relentlessly fight for the worldwide establishment of peace and democratic institutions, a promise which America has kept even in the face of its own national crisis.
Imagine your son or daughter holding a gun, and accidently shoot his family member. Person shows up to a school building armed and shot 20 innocent children who would’ve had bright future ahead of them. This situation happened multiple times in the past. It is an alarm, sounding for us to create better gun control. America is a huge nations and gun control became a major problem as mentioned in the speech, fellow Americans have reportedly died at the end of a gun monthly. Everyone can deliver a speech, yet not everyone can draw the reader’s attention, sell their words, and gain attractions from the audience. A great speaker is known for his usage of appeals. LaPierre called
President Obama’s Address to the nation was presented on January 5, 2016. His speech was shown on all of the major network stations. The main goal of his speech was to get the point across to the nation about the increasing problem of gun use. His speech really focused on the issue of gun control and if it would benefit the country. Overall, the biggest idea of his Address was that gun control is a large issue in the United States. The way to prevent deaths caused by firearms can be prevented in other ways than taking peoples guns away. The examples brought up in this Address really stood out to me. The use of personal, national, and global examples really made his speech stronger on the topic of effectiveness.
Bush demonstrates that with the use of metaphors, personification, and also repetition. Using metaphor, he compares America to steel, saying that America is like steel, but not pliable. Portraying that whatever dangerous act comes to America, America will stay strong and not move. Personification is to explain the reasoning behind the terrorists’ operations and the motives behind this move. Bush gives feeling and visualization traits to the nation, consequently putting it in the nation’s point of view, highlighting what the nation felt and saw. Repetition is to bring America together and strengthen everyone. It is to show that this heartbreaking event did not just affect the victims, but it affects the entire country. The way Bush uses repetition to get the people of America together makes America stronger because the more a country is together, the more power and strength it will possess. As a final point, President Bush’s usage of these three rhetorical devices grabs the attention of the people and helps Bush express the type of tone he wants to get
President Obama’s Inaugural Speech: Rhetorical Analysis. Barrack Obama’s inauguration speech successfully accomplished his goal by using rhetoric to ensure our nation that we will be in safe hands. The speech is similar to ideas obtained from the founding documents and Martin Luther King’s speech to establish ‘our’ goal to get together and take some action on the problems our country is now facing. As President Barack Obama starts his speech, he keeps himself from using ‘me’, ‘myself’, and ‘I’ and replacing it with ‘we’, ‘us’, and ‘together’ to achieve his ethos.
President Barack H. Obama has been always using rhetorical strategies in his political speeches. He used these strategies to present important points and views of his in front of public. Delivering points and views properly and logically got him to be the president in the first place. President Obama used mostly ethos and pathos, yet some logos to deliver his inaugural and the state of union speeches. Being that, he was able to reach the audience emotionally and make the speech flow efficiently while he preserved his credibility. Each speech has own audience that differs from the other. In the inaugural speech the audience was the public and therefor the speech was short and used short sentences that are easy to understand. On the other hand, the state of union speech’s audience was mostly the congers members and therefore the language was more specific and filled with political terminology. Both speeches will be discussed upon context and using ethos, pathos and logos consecutively.
The chemical sarin, is a deadly nerve agent that interferes with signaling within the nervous system (Geggel). This substance was used to kill 89 Syrians and injure 541 others (“Syria Chemical”). Syria is in a state of emergency due to the recent attacks from Russia and their own President Assad, and even more recent attacks from the United States, France, and Great Britain. Nikki Haley represents the United States as an ambassador in the United Nations. Due to the recent Russian bombings in Syria, the UN security council commenced and Mrs. Haley spoke about her concerns regarding what the states will do next. Nikki Haley took notice of the UN’s lack of justice when it came to the inhumane chemical weapons attack in Syria. Haley made a speech
Many would argue that President Obama is one of the most effective speakers in the decade. With his amazing speeches, he captivates his audience with his emotion and official tone.
Remarks by President Obama at the eulogy for the honorable Reverend Clementa Pinckney; A man who was killed when an another man rushed into a church in South Carolina and killed 9 people while they were immersed in an afternoon mass. President Obama created different appeals and feelings through the use of different Rhetorical Devices such as Logos, Ethos, and Pathos. The use of logos ethos and pathos help the president convey his central idea which is to ensure the people of South Carolina and the people of the United States that not only are they safe, but they will unite to take this opportunity to create a more united U.S. This will happen through the establishment of new gun reforms.
When Barack Obama ran for presidency, there were a lot of questions about his race, color, and whether he was born in the U.S.. The comments from his pastor Jeremiah Wright put him in an awkward situation, so he decided to give this speech to prove the point that we are all the same and live in the same country, so there shouldn’t be any discrimination among anyone. In his speech, Obama uses rhetorical devices to explain how race discrimination is affecting our country and us in every way possible. The use of rhetorical devices in this speech has strong effects on the audience. The use of allusion, symbolism, optimistic tone, and repetition of words gives the speech a strong argumentative tone. He argues the fact that to be able to achieve such big goals and how out country was supposed to be from the beginning, we need to stay united and rely on younger
In this paper I am going to discuss the rhetorical appeals, as well as the argumentative structure, audience and purpose set forth by George W. Bush in his September 27 speech in Flagstaff, Arizona. More specifically I will refer to the rhetorical appeals of ethos, pathos and logos, and explain how they are used to gain the support and attention of the audience and further the further the purpose of the speech. As I explain these appeals I will also give an insight into the argumentative structure and why it is apparent in this particular speech.
President Obama’s memorial speech following the Tuscan shooting carefully utilized the Aristotelian appeal of pathos, or emotional appeals through his word choice, which aligned him with the American people while still conveying a sense of authority, and his use of biblical allusions, which drew his audience together on the basis of shared ideologies.