Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device.
You can download and read online Words of War and Peace: Great Speeches of War, Conflict, and Military History file PDF Book only if you are registered here.
And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Words of War and Peace: Great Speeches of War, Conflict, and Military History book.
Happy reading Words of War and Peace: Great Speeches of War, Conflict, and Military History Bookeveryone.
Download file Free Book PDF Words of War and Peace: Great Speeches of War, Conflict, and Military History at Complete PDF Library.
This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats.
Here is The CompletePDF Book Library.
It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Words of War and Peace: Great Speeches of War, Conflict, and Military History Pocket Guide.
tell me that this means war, if you still try to defend the infamies and horrors being then a new word in St. Petersburg, used only by the elite. All her invitations .
Table of contents
- Lessons in Manliness From Hardboiled Detective Philip Marlowe
- War - Wikipedia
- War and Peace: the 10 things you need to know (if you haven't actually read it)
- Navigation menu
Perhaps the most revealing statement in the essay was that Churchill believed a strong oratory could be developed. This was probably because Churchill did not see himself as a natural speaker, but rather one who worked hard to hone his craft. So he did, and he did it well. His speeches are powerful and had a major impact on world affairs when they were spoken.
Lessons in Manliness From Hardboiled Detective Philip Marlowe
You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: Victory at all costs—Victory in spite of all terror—Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival. He said he would tell them what told his new ministers: The Liberties of Britain January 10, But once we touch reality, once we touch their interests and privileges - [kicks his platform] Out!
In it, he told his Brummie audience that: The great air battle which has been in progress over this Island for the last few weeks has recently attained a high intensity. On August 15, , the battle of Britain reached a crisis point. All the resources of Fighter Command in the South were used. Churchill gave a stirring tribute to the RAF fighter pilots who were fighting in air above Britain. If at first all the States of Europe are not willing or able to join the Union, we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and those who can.
We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air Though there was national euphoria and relief at the unexpected deliverance at Dunkirk, the peril facing Britain was now universally perceived.
But Churchill told the world that Britain would stand firm:. We shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be; we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender The hydrogen bomb has made an astounding incursion into the structure of our lives and thoughts. This was the last great speech made by Churchill in the House of Commons. In it he spoke of the terrible divisions which had set in after the end of the Second World War; the antagonism between East and West, and in particular the nuclear bomb.
Meanwhile, never flinch, never weary, never despair. In the days to come the British and American peoples will for their own safety and for the good of all walk together side by side in majesty, injustice and in peace. This was such a major speech because it helped convince the US government to focus on the European theatre of war, thus helping Britain rather than focusing on the Pacific theatre. Churchill highlighted the common culture and language and his own American lineage by saying: The absence of contradiction is the trait that consistency has in common with rationality, but in the uncertainty of choice, consistency can be a more effective guiding principle than rationality because, unlike the latter, it calls into question the identity and the different visions of the world that make up our individual cognitive map.
Consistency, therefore, as a deliberative strategy, is capable of guiding the decision-making process, gradually excluding the less desirable options and overcoming contradictions. This study is briefly quoted to highlight how contradictions, as well as ambiguities, while part of reality, thought and experience, and enhanced by the complexity of the present, permit, and in many cases require, a choice to be made. So much so, that in the cited case, consistency becomes a strategy capable of effectively overcoming the contradictions that, as noted by the author, are not so much between means and ends or goals, if you prefer but between the same purpose when, as in the case of critical choices, values come into play, the utilitarian criterion of the choice vanishes and the options become infinite.
Ambivalence 14 , however, excludes the choice between the two options that it by definition offers. Whether it is a matter of mixed feelings that an individual feels, or two normative instances that belong to the ethical horizon of a society, or the dual institutional mandate of an organization, that which determines ambivalence is that the two proposed options are opposite, of equal strength, and are interdependent, such that they prefigure the impossibility of choice without paying a very high price.
Defining the concept of sociological ambivalence, 15 has meant a painstaking assembly of stimuli, suggestions and theoretical propositions derived from reading the works of authors such as Simmel, Elias, Merton the only one who speaks explicitly of sociological ambivalence , Elster, Bateson … to the point of reaching a definition of the ambiguous situation that arises when a social actor be it an individual, a group, an organization, etc. What distinguishes these two instances is their opposition and their interdependence, which equally solicit the actor to the point that he must confine his act to a metaphorical space, a continuum defined at its extremities by the two bodies, without being able to provide a better choice for him.
In this sense, the action will go towards one of the two poles of ambivalence, but in any case will remain under the influence of the other so much so that it could, under the circumstances, reverse the direction of the action without ever breaking the bond that binds him to the two requirements.
- You Did What? Saying No To Conventional Cancer Treatment..
- Winston Churchill's 10 most important speeches - Telegraph?
- The Polarized Presidency of George W. Bush?
- The Journey of a Skeptic.
- Lessons From Fahrenheit 451 for the Modern Day.
In other words, when faced with the double command -do, believe, think… this is the opposite of this — the actor is not capable of making the best choice for himself because the choices, although opposite, appear interdependent and subjectively or objectively imposed. If anything, he may direct his action towards one or other of the two poles in a sort of strategy of alternation either in time or in space being careful not to move too far in one direction.
Of course he may do so, or even choose a third option, but if this happens, the action that would result would almost certainly have negative effects on both the subject and the context as a backdrop to the action. A useful metaphor to clarify this concept is that of the movement of the pendulum. Ambivalence is given by the juxtaposition of two interdependent forces of opposite force and of equal intensity. The two forces do not exist separately but only in relation to each other.
They influence each other and create a dynamic field that supports the effect of this opposing thrust, putting in place a perennially oscillatory movement, provided that it maintains the ambivalent nature of their relationship. This means that neither prevails over the other, if not alternately and only partly. In fact, when one force seems to take the upper hand, the opposing force intervenes, which changes the direction of the movement: It is evident that what has just been described is only a theoretical model which exemplifies and simplifies contexts and situations that in reality are much more complex.
Over the years, some of my research has confirmed the usefulness and legitimacy of this interpretation to give an account of social realities and patterns of interaction that are difficult to interpret: Nevertheless I think it is possible, starting from the concept of sociological ambivalence, to draw a basic diagram of ambivalent communication, a kind of reference model that briefly describes the sequence of argument. We will begin with two statements from the same speech. Because such communication prefigures an ambivalent configuration, three preconditions must be met.
The first condition is that we start from an argumentative force: The second condition is that the two statements are both reasonably sustainable. Finally, the two statements must have for the speaker the same motivational force, or if they must argue, the same normative force, or the same degree of accuracy, with respect to the reference context. The locutor of an ambivalent communication can choose to end his speech here, or continue, either demonstrating the interdependence between two statements they justify each other, or are the result of each other, or, if you change the content or character of the former, you are also changing those of the latter ; or demonstrating the need to pursue implicit or explicit goals contained in the two statements, to finally outline appropriate action strategies to achieve these goals.
The first three steps are constitutive of ambivalent communication, the others are consequential. Specifically, the first condition is satisfied when there is an explicit and clear admission of the opposition between the two propositions contained in the speech. The second condition is satisfied when the sustainability and practicality of both statements is argued convincingly.
The third condition is satisfied when the speaker argues the necessity of it The first two conditions are met when the inadequacy and impossibility, or the inconvenience of choosing are demonstrated. The last is satisfied when the action strategies are convincingly proposed and take into account both options, respecting the ambivalent configuration. Awareness Ambiguity in the language in an attempt to eliminate cognitive dissonance. Unity in time and space Table 1: In the case of the speeches taken into consideration, that of Bush could be read as the speech of one who denies ambivalence, and who does so to deceive the other party.
Blair and, with a weaker argument, Berlusconi, admit the evidence of the contradiction between the value of peace and the necessity of war, but their role requires them to choose: Prodi also speaks of the war on terrorism, emphasizing the concept of asymmetric warfare and unconventional strategies, tactics and resources.
He emphasises above all the need for a joint responsibility on the part of international organizations primarily the UN to implement measures to combat terrorism, promote development, strengthen diplomacy, prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and supervise and find solutions to serious regional crises. In times of war, in and in , the United States has twice brought peace to Europe and made this a lasting peace through the Marshall Plan. France is at their side out of friendship, gratitude and loyalty.
Zapatero and Cameron also talk about the ways to counter terrorism, but both with an eye to their own country. Particularly striking is the intervention of the former, carried out on December 31, at the Parliamentary Commission of Investigation on the bombings in Madrid on March 11, The speech of Zapatero, who, having become Prime Minister on March 15 , immediately announced the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq, is consistent in pointing out the ways in which to combat the terrorist threat: Can you find another country in the world more peaceful and more secure?
More reflective and more moderate? It is not easy to contain the pride of belonging to a country that gave on this occasion an example of civility, a sense of citizenship, of solidarity. The realist argument, as noted by Walzer, 21 can be traced back to Thucydides and literature that Hobbes produced two centuries later: For this reason, it expresses its own rules, other than those of morality: The idealists, represented by Woodrow Wilson, hold a different view, according to which, on the contrary, war is only just if it is waged to eradicate war.
Walzer points out how this perspective risks the justification of war, transforming it into a crusade. In any case, continues Walzer, who defines himself as realistic and not a realist, the contrast between aims and values is misleading because war is always discussed in evaluative and ethical terms and it is therefore legitimate to distinguish between just wars, that is justifiable, and unjust wars, that is not justifiable.
No idealist should imply that power is irrelevant to the spread of ideals. The real issue is to establish a sense of proportion between these two essential elements of policy. I reject those choices. To oversimplify, realists downplay the importance of values and the internal structures of states, emphasizing instead the balance of power as the key to stability and peace.
Idealists emphasize the primacy of values, such as freedom and democracy and human rights in ensuring that just political order is obtained. As a professor, I recognize that this debate has won tenure for and sustained the careers of many generations of scholars. As a policymaker, I can tell you that these categories obscure reality.
In real life, power and values are married completely. The latter, speaking of the legitimacy of militarily intervening for humanitarian reasons:. All of these speeches present an argumentative tension between the themes of peace and those of war and propose strategies to combat terrorism, combining these tensions in different ways. An ambivalent message in itself does not exist.
What exists, rather, is a person who, for example, experiences ambivalent feelings and expresses this ambivalence in their speech. Alternatively, a subject who in their communication describes an ambivalent context: In this sense, the speeches of Obama and Rice are two examples which are very different from each other. In order to achieve peace we must make both peace and war. It is not enough to fight the terrorists; we must also combat the conditions that foster terrorism: Islamic terrorism has changed the way we understand war: The substantial difference between the two speeches is that in the first case the speaker provides arguments in support of his thesis, and that is the close link between war and peace or, according to the interpretation proposed, their ambivalent relationship ; in the second case a sort of act of faith is required you have to believe it because we say so , ambiguously solving the contradiction between war and peace.
Ambivalence and ambiguity mark out opposite semantic territories: An example of good ambivalent communication is that of those who take on board the contradictions of their discourse and lead them to the ambivalence of the situation to which it refers.
War - Wikipedia
A situation that, as such, must be addressed by implementing appropriate strategies without leaving the ambivalence, i. It is the speech of those who give account of the contradiction: To achieve peace, we must at the same time make war flush out terrorist nests wherever they are found, capture the leaders, kill them… and peace diplomatic and intelligence actions, negotiations, economic investment in poor countries…. Because if it is true that war alone does not defeat terrorism, but rather fosters it, it is equally true that peaceful actions alone cannot fight it.
Those who support this thesis believe that the choice between war and peace is impossible and that it is necessary to put in place a strategy that takes ambivalence into account and that is effective with respect to the given objectives. It is the communication of those who are aware of the ambivalence, tolerate it because they understand it and argue its reasons. In this perspective it takes into account the complexity of the situation, promises action strategies to resolve problems and to achieve objectives the types of such strategies have been previously described.
Not even its defects some errors of omission, for example weaken it significantly His whole speech is intended to demonstrate that to achieve the proposed objective — to defeat terrorism — it is absolutely necessary to put in place at the same time acts of war and acts of peace: From this point of view that is, from the point of view of ambivalent argumentation , it can be considered a good model against which to analyse the other speeches.
Some will kill, and some will be killed. Not only does he share these reasons, but he argues them and the doubts raised against him become his own doubts: From here on begins a reasoning that leads step by step to the ambivalence of the relationship between war and peace.
War and Peace: the 10 things you need to know (if you haven't actually read it)
At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease … and over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers and clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. First and foremost a strong admission of the truth:. In many ways, these efforts succeeded.
Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe.
Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale. Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states — all these things have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos.
In these new conflicts, all the rules of just and justifiable war are violated: What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace. It begins an argument that redefines in the light of the present what war is and what peace is and argues the ambivalence of this relationship. The first rule of ambivalent communication — a thesis is supported: It solves no social problem: The second rule of ambivalent communication — starting from this contradiction the veracity of both statements is argued: But being aware of the value and the power of peace does not mean ignoring the necessity of war: I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people.