Log in

View Full Version : speech-iraq:war is not an option - whad'ya think?



mentalbunny
21st November 2002, 22:09
Some fo you know I had to do a persuasive speech for English: thought you'd be interested:

Presentation Notes: Iraq- War Is Not An Option

It cannot be denied that there should be a regime change in Iraq; Saddam Hussein is a ruthless, merciless leader who treats his people badly and is a possible direct risk to other countries as well as destabilising World politics in general. However Bush’s plans of a military attack on the country are not a realistic option.

Bush has motives other than regime change for the poor people of Iraq; these affect the validity of going to war as these motives do not justify the extensive loss of life that will occur through war. The means will not justify the end, for the means will be bloody and wasteful and the end could well be a puppet regime for the States in Iraq or just another evil dictator. These are Bush’s real reasons for invading Iraq:

1.Palestine/Israel- Bush is giving $2 billion a year in military aid to Sharon, this is twice the value needed to give the whole of Africa clean water. Meanwhile Hussein is giving about $25,000 to families of suicide bombers, which is seriously irritating America. Bush is giving Israel a lot of support against the Palestinians and in return Sharon is doing Bush a favour and giving him support against Iraq, is anyone in the world really listening to these idiots? If Bush gets rid of Saddam Hussein his life will be a lot easier.
2.Oil- Bush loves his oil, it’s practically in his blood. That’s what he worked in before his political career and he still remembers the people who helped him along by giving them lots of lovely state money. Iraq has lots of oil, and America is using this to bargain with. Russia has big deals with Iraq over oil, and is only willing to support or at least not to oppose the States because they do not want to lose their deals. In fact most of the world is only standing back and not opposing America because they cannot afford to damage relations with them, we can’t let America get away with this just because it’s bigger than us.
3.Votes- this man wants votes, Americans in general like the idea of throwing their weight around by going to war and showing how they are the toughest and best, when really they know little if anything about the rest of the world. Bush also wants to distract his prospective voters from the increasingly obvious corporate scandals, back home in the US of A. His dodgy dealings from the 80’s are coming back to haunt him, as is the drug use and womanizing that he indulged in from college up until he was 40. This guy can’t even keep the same story running, his lies are always different, but he’s trying to keep this quiet from the American Citizens.

You cannot have failed to notice that Blair supports Mr Bush, his motives are slightly different:

1.World stage- Blair thinks that if he stays in peoples’ minds, in whatever way, it will help him. He is worried about being forgotten and wants as much influence as possible.
2.Moderator-Blair is intent on keeping our so-called “special” relationship with the US in tact, although we never seem to get anything out of it and the US gets us as its poodle to trail around on a leash, doing whatever it wants. Blair knows that Bush is a bit hasty to say the least and we have to be grateful, if it wasn’t for him we might already be at war, because he’s the one who persuaded Bush to go to the UN and seek their approval. However this does not excuse him and we still cannot go to war, even if it would be worse with Bush on his own making the plans. That’s why over 350,000 people gathered in London in September to express their disgust with propositions of war.

Besides the unethical reasons of these leaders there are other reasons that we should not go to war, simply because it is war.

1.This war, should it take place, would also completely destabilize the Middle East. Jordan among other countries relies heavily on Iraq for its oil. If a war started the East would be split between the countries with American airbases and those opposing military action, these countries opposing a war are suspicious of Bush and believe he may have plans to install a puppet regime to control oil in Iraq and then spread round the Middle east to gain more and more control of the area’s oil. These countries also call for Bush to look towards Israel and Palestine, to sort out that situation.

2.War in general is horrible, imagine bombs dropping on the homes of you and your neighbours, the male members of your family being put in the army, you being put in the army. Boys as young as eight go off to fight for their despotic leader, victims to his whims when they have committed no crime. We all know that Saddam’s power must end, but we should also know that we cannot do it by entering into a war.

3.What would the benefits of going to war be? Can we guarantee that another leader like Saddam won’t rise up? No we can’t and there will be no benefit from this war, there will only be death and disruption. The situation in the Middle East is critical enough right now, we do not need to start something new in the hopes of distracting the world from the already existing problems; we need first to deal with the conflict and tension in the area.

I am appealing to you, to your sense of humanity to stand against the idea of military action. I say this to you, just this, if asked say you are against the war. You do not wish to line Bush’s pockets, you do not wish to be responsible for the deaths of innocent civilians and soldiers. It is evident that Saddam could protect himself, not his nation but himself, from attack. I am sure you can see this. We cannot let our nation go blundering into a war that will cause infinitely more harm than good. Look at the evidence, it all adds up, OBL was never caught, what makes us think we can get Saddam Hussein? Iraq: war is not an option.

peaccenicked
22nd November 2002, 06:41
Good piece. Comrade.

Stormin Norman
22nd November 2002, 13:49
What did you get for a grade on that piece?

I must say that I was not persuded at all. Not only did you fail to give coherent reasons for your opposition tp the war, the reasons you did give are unsubstantiated, and purely a matter of conjecture. At times it seemed like a random cornucopia of ideas thrown together carelessly. In honesty, it was more like an emotional plea than a persuasive piece. If you have time to further research your position, I think you might be able to save yourself severe embarassment. Although I do not agree with the anti-war stance, surely a good persuasive piece would get me to at least rethink my position.

Good Luck with your presentation!

Non-Sectarian Bastard!
22nd November 2002, 15:51
Im not a supporter of saddam but why is saddam that bad. the american propaganda learns u that saddam is bad but say never why. ever thought about that?? And compare those bad points with george bush and his dad. 2 sick minds who will trow thousands of ppl in battle and the ppl who will mainly suffer from this are the iraqi ppl. And they will install an puppet government in bagdad like they did in kabul. A former CIA agent as president of afganistan how more puppet can u be??

Stormin Norman
22nd November 2002, 17:41
One thing is for certain. In comparison to what CCCP just wrote, your speech looks like a masterpiece.

Just kidding, CCCP has convinced me that all my preconceived notions about Iraq have been erroneous. He has 'learned' me how to think in news ways. Very profound CCCP. Mentalbunny, you should take notes on everything he says. The density of wisdom in every sentence uttered by CCCP is rivaled only by history's most notorious philosphers. One day you will be reading his manifesto.

Capitalist Imperial
22nd November 2002, 19:25
Your writing was good, good command of english grammar and punctuation. However, I think I agree with SN on the content.

One thing that jumped out at me in particular was your blatant insult of Americans, which was highly stereotypical and untrue.

Insulting people or groups in a speech compromises the speech's validity, especially considering how much america has done for your nation.

Stormin Norman
22nd November 2002, 19:35
Credibility is key.

mentalbunny
23rd November 2002, 13:30
Bearing in mind that this was for GCSE (so therefore in Britain) it was pretty damn good. i think I got an A* for it. You may say it isn't persuasive, you should have heard the guy who was advocating war! Fucking sent me to sleep! All about Saddam's piles of waepons, blad di blah di blah. No sources, I know I didn't have any but the way I delivered it, I didn't need any!

You capis are entitled to your opinions, but you tell me wjhy we should go to war. I wasn't really trying to convince anyone, I was just trying to get a good mark. Persuading the people at my school is like getting orange juice from an apple, it just doesn't happen.

Guest
23rd November 2002, 20:06
As long as israel gets gassed I'm all for the iraqi war, if U.S soldiers die, thats always a plus.

But anyway, reasons not to goto war

1. Iraq is not a direct threat to any country, except maybe kuwait or the saudi's. But the U.S would protect them so thats out of the question. Out goes the peacekeeping.

2. If Iraq wants to kill their own people, let them. The U.S straps people to chairs and fries their brains, so the humanitarian thing is thrown out too.

3. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction aren't all that dangerous and he would be nuked by israels non existant nukes if he did try anything. He's not stupid, and they can't reach anything outside the middle east.

4. Saddam lied to the U.N, which is uncannily like israel who still denies having nuclear weapons. It should also be noted that israel is the biggest violater of U.N resolutions, iraq isn't even in the top 5. Everyone lies to the U.N, should we go bomb israel too?

5. The majority of the west isn't supportive of this, I don't care what tony blair says. Go against iraq and alot of people in alot of countries will be pissed at the United States for a long time.

Reasons to invade iraq.

1. Gets bush re-elected in 2004 maybe.

2. Free oil for the U.S!!!

Ok, well considering that free oil seems to be the main reason for the invasion, bush's re-election is a given after 9/11, I find this to be very immoral.

Free oil is not a very good reason to kill Iraqis, and get the entire world thinking that the U.S is the biggest asshole ever.

I'm wanting to liken this to the mexican american war, a attack on a practically defensless country, but not manifest destiny excuse this time.

Guest
23rd November 2002, 20:08
Oh! Another thing on Iraq.

Guess how much of Iraq's oil revenue has been spent on anything BUT buying medicine, paying back the U.N and Kuwait?

The answer? No oil revenue was spent on anything except those.

Capitalist Imperial
24th November 2002, 21:58
Quote: from Guest on 8:08 pm on Nov. 23, 2002
Oh! Another thing on Iraq.

Guess how much of Iraq's oil revenue has been spent on anything BUT buying medicine, paying back the U.N and Kuwait?

The answer? No oil revenue was spent on anything except those.

Wow, iraq is using their oil revenue for what it is supposed to use it for! Wow, they deserve special recognition!

LOL, get serious.

Guest
25th November 2002, 02:02
Not special recognition, but atleast some noticing. We hear cheering all over the globe everytime the U.S actually manages to follow through with a U.N resolution.

Here's some more trivia for you ;)

Which country prevents the U.N protecting its resolutions the most?

The U.S, I can garuntee you that there have been several we won't hear about, against israel, the U.S just vetoes them all.

TheUnknown
26th November 2002, 16:58
Did you know the uS refused to sign the anti-torture thingy (sorry, can't remember the name for it)? I think that's sick, it's because they didn't want UN inspections going to Guatanama bay. Urggh, I wish America would just behave itself for once, it's like a spoilt, bullying kid.

suffianr
26th November 2002, 18:15
From SN:

"In honesty, it was more like an emotional plea than a persuasive piece. If you have time to further research your position, I think you might be able to save yourself severe embarassment."

Honestly, you don't know much about writing, do you?
The most persuasive articles or news stories are the ones with the facts, but also, the ones that appeal on an emotional level to the readers.

It's simple:

Persuasion + emotion = Impact (Awareness & Action)

Persuasion - emotion = No Impact, No Awareness, No Action

Why overwhelm your audience with too much information when you can make them smile, frown, nod or shout out in agreement?

You're not a Liberal Arts major, are you? :)

p.s./ mentalbunny, good stuff, keep it up! :biggrin:

Capitalist Imperial
26th November 2002, 21:05
Quote: from suffianr on 6:15 pm on Nov. 26, 2002
From SN:

"In honesty, it was more like an emotional plea than a persuasive piece. If you have time to further research your position, I think you might be able to save yourself severe embarassment."

Honestly, you don't know much about writing, do you?
The most persuasive articles or news stories are the ones with the facts, but also, the ones that appeal on an emotional level to the readers.

It's simple:

Persuasion + emotion = Impact (Awareness & Action)

Persuasion - emotion = No Impact, No Awareness, No Action

Why overwhelm your audience with too much information when you can make them smile, frown, nod or shout out in agreement?

You're not a Liberal Arts major, are you? :)

p.s./ mentalbunny, good stuff, keep it up! :biggrin:

SN's posts prove that he is among the best writers here.

And being a liberal arts major does not necessarily make a good writer or speech-giver

usually, liberal arts curriculums merely pump out a bunch of extreme leftist whiners that contribute little to society besides frivolous rhetoric

liberal arts colleges, uuuggghhhh!

TheUnknown
26th November 2002, 21:43
yeah well CI, you would say that SN's a good writer, jsut cos you agree with what he says. i don't give a shit what you think, I quite liked 'bunny's speech, although it could have been better it's good for GCSE. I like the last sentence, really punchy.

suffianr
26th November 2002, 22:29
"usually, liberal arts curriculums merely pump out a bunch of extreme leftist whiners that contribute little to society besides frivolous rhetoric.

Rhetoric? Hey, wait a minute, wasn't that sentence an oxymoron? :)

Nice rhetoric, CI. Keep trying.

Capitalist Imperial
26th November 2002, 22:36
Quote: from suffianr on 10:29 pm on Nov. 26, 2002
"usually, liberal arts curriculums merely pump out a bunch of extreme leftist whiners that contribute little to society besides frivolous rhetoric.

Rhetoric? Hey, wait a minute, wasn't that sentence an oxymoron? :)

Nice rhetoric, CI. Keep trying.

please explain how the above sentence is an oxymoron, sir, as by definition it is not

Stormin Norman
27th November 2002, 14:18
"usually, liberal arts curriculums merely pump out a bunch of extreme leftist whiners that contribute little to society besides frivolous rhetoric"-CI

Great action! Great action! LMFAO!

suffianr
27th November 2002, 14:45
Well, CI, I'd like to think that you're just as guilty of frivolous rhetoric as I am...

Capitalist Imperial
27th November 2002, 20:20
Quote: from suffianr on 2:45 pm on Nov. 27, 2002
Well, CI, I'd like to think that you're just as guilty of frivolous rhetoric as I am...

huh...

mentalbunny
27th November 2002, 21:48
Now now children, play nicely! Thanks for all your comments, positive or otherwise!