Atoms for Peace Analysis Essay

The speech that I decided to do is John F. Kennedy's Address to the Houston Ministerial Association. I will be using both external and internal criticism. With the external criticism I will be examining the time, the occasion, how the audience reacted, John F Kennedy's biographical factors and the effects of the speech. John F Kennedy came from a strong political family, was well educated, defended his country in WW II and received rewards for his courage and bravery, and along with his political career that lead him to the nomination for presidency in 1960. With in the internal criticism I will be looking at the invention, organization, style, and presentation. I will show how he used logical proof, ethical proof, and pathetic proof to

Dwight D. Eisenhower was one of the most influential leaders in history. Eisenhower grew up in a poor family in Kansas. He grew up around strong religious values, due to his family's mennonite background. After working to help pay for his brothers education, Eisenhower leaves to go to the United States Military School, against his family's wishes. After one year of service he is ranked sixty one out of one hundred twenty six of all military generals.

This analysis seeks to assess the strengths of Nixon's speech within the context of its target audience and historical backdrop. Nixon's primary goal was to regain confidence and protect his future. His intended listeners were the voters at large, those who were undecided or wavering in their support, for him. Nixon aimed to connect with the audience by presenting himself as a public servant who was unfairly criticized by his opponents. He emphasized his perseverance by stating, "I have never been one to

“Dwight D. Eisenhower was a master craftsman in the demanding art of leadership. For twenty years, first as a soldier and then as a statesman, he bore the daily responsibility for difficult decisions that had far-reaching consequences for the nation.” (WS) He had been promoted lieutenant colonel and was an obscure officer until the US involvement with World War Two. The US had been attacked at Pearl Harbor by the Japanese on December 7, 1941. Soon after the attack, Congress declared war and they entered on the Allied side. Until the war Eisenhower had no real chance of distinguishing himself through war. However, he still worked hard to be prepared for whatever task came to him. This preparation and hard work helped him, as he caught the eye

He was known as a trustworthy person, throughout his period as a world figure. Often,“His good humor and good looks attracted people. Most...found it impossible to be in Eisenhower’s presence and not like him” (Ambrose 172-173; vol. 1). It made him a popular figure in the eyes of the press, and helped build his reputation. He was also a highly experienced tactician, which can be shown in some of his successes. Eisenhower’s greatest success,”Came in foreign policy, and the related area of national defense spending. By making peace in Korea, and [by] avoiding war…he achieved his major accomplishments…Eisenhower boasted that ‘the United States has never lost a soldier or foot of ground in my administration. We kept the peace’ (Ambrose 626; vol. 2). Eisenhower was a member of the War plans division, so he had plenty of experience in managing tight budgets. Lastly, he was a team player. As a teenager, he was a football player for his high school. The more he played,”the more he appreciated the importance of teamwork. He was the rah-rah type, constantly shouting words of encouragement to his teammates” (Ambrose 34; vol. 1). Eisenhower knew how important it was to make a good team, in any situation. He was very picky as he chose his new administrators. He wanted “Men he could turn to for advice and with who he could share both responsibility and praise” (Ambrose 20; vol.

John F. Kennedy’s inaugural speech is certainly one to remember. It’s memorable not for its length, but for the effective content that it beholds. He entices readers by the use of strong rhetoric techniques. His inaugural analyzes style of writing, such as diction, tropes, schemes, and syntax, and applies the concept of it effectively throughout the speech. A reader performs rhetorical analysis to examine how authors attempt to persuade their audiences by looking at the various components that make up the art of persuasion. Moreover, it is most essential to be able to understand the relationship among the speaker, subject, and audience, which President Kennedy adequately exploits in his speech.

President Kennedy conveys to the audience about the subject of unity through the rhetorical device known as Ethos. An author that is credible or well-known is likely to persuade an audience into believing his argument, as this is what ethos essentially is. Throughout the speech Kennedy addresses numerous topics and goals he has in mind during his time in the oval office. The result of this speech leads to Kennedy’s legacy being world peace due to the countless mentions of peacetime within the speech. Kennedy mentions the topic of peace in hopes of gaining the support of Americans due to the extreme

John F. Kennedy Inauguration speech uses a different style to portray the president 's legacy. Here we get to hear a first person account of what he hopes for the nation and what his objectives ultimately are. The prominent method of persuasion used is ethos while there is also a presence of other key rhetorical terms throughout the speech. The readers are compelled to listen and take in all of the words given by John F. Kennedy since there is that sense of trust or credibility in his statements. He has now become arguably

President Eisenhower was the greatest president in United States history because he instilled firsthand his experiences from times of war and times of peace, to increase the government’s power during his presidential term and years to follow. He was a well-established military general during many United States campaigns, before he took office as president of the United States. The most notable campaign he took part in was World War II, where he was the Supreme Allied Commander of European Forces and held the highest rank a United States officer can obtain, 5-Star General. He was one of nine generals to ever hold the rank of 5-Star General, which greatly gave him an advantage when he later ran for president. But he also used the side of

Dwight D. Eisenhower was a man full of brains, and always used his communication skills to help his country. This came in handy during World War II. “He argued that this war, more than previous conflicts, would require careful planning and logistical precision—skills at which he excelled” (American Decades). Better than most officers, he understood that politics and the military were closely entwined. On February 10, 1943, he became a

Harold Ickes was successful in presenting his speech by using great rhetorical devices appealing to his audience logically, emotionally, and ethics. As I read Harold Ickes’s speech the words summed up the emotion of the time so perfectly. The time was when Hitler and the Nazi army was headed for world domination. His intents were to influence American citizen to unite as a country.

Becoming familiar with these men proved to be an asset in Eisenhower’s military career. Before the entrance of America into World War II, he found himself promoted to the rank of brigadier general.

Most poets use their unique gift of writing poetry to relieve stress or just to document their emotions towards a given subject. Others use it as a key to bring about social change and voice their opinion on modern events. This is the case in Stephen Crane’s War Is Kind. The speaker in the poem uses irony as a strategy to convince the reader of the harsh reality of war.

Through his words, Eisenhower was able to conjure up emotions by reminding the soldiers, sailors, and allied force of their past experiences. He closes on a positive note, saying that he has confidence in the works and capability of his people. This is another way to positively

The existence of nuclear weapons for better or worse have indubitably impacted our lives in one way or the other. There are the some who find these weapons to be singularly beneficial. For example Defence Analyst Edward Luttwak said “we have lived since 1945 without another world war precisely because rational minds…extracted a durable peace from the very terror of nuclear weapons.” (Luttwak, 1983). Moreover, Robert Art and Kenneth Waltz both extrapolate that “the probability of war between American and Russia or between NATO and the Warsaw Pact is practically nil precisely because the military planning and deployments of each,