Korean War

In this section, answer each of the following questions with 2-3 sentences.
1. Prior to the Korean War, Harry Truman had used disease metaphors to describe
the danger posed by the Soviet Union. After the war started, what metaphor did Truman rely on
most?
2. When Lyndon Johnson became president, he committed the U.S. to war in
Vietnam with his Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. In his speech about the events, he said, “The North
Vietnamese regime had conducted further deliberate attacks on the United States naval vessels
operating in international waters…I had therefore directed air action against gunboat and
supporting facilities in these hostile areas.” Identify his justification for the conflict and how it was
criticized.
3. The Vietnam Era presided over the greatest pop cultural explosion of antiwar
sentiment in US history. Identify ONE antiwar song and explain its criticism of the Vietnam War.
4. Ronald Reagan famously declared the Soviet Union an “evil empire,” saying,
“there is sin and evil in the world, and we’re enjoined by Scripture and the Lord Jesus to oppose
it with all our might.” As a rhetorical critic, how does Reagan’s language impact public
understandings of the struggle against communism?
5. At the end of the Cold War, Francis Fukuyama claimed the fall of communism
signaled the “end of history.” What did he mean by that?
6. In response, Samuel Huntington wrote about a coming “clash of civilizations.”
Does his thesis explain the rise of terrorism in the 21st century? Explain why or why not.
7. Is there a difference between “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide?” If not, why do
the two terms exist? If so, how does one identify each?
8. In Rwanda, we learned about the “genocidal rhetoric” employed by the Hutus.
What are the characteristics of “genocidal rhetoric?”
9. What did George W. Bush ask of the American public after 9/11? Was that typical
of presidential war messages?
10. Your task in this class was to take the study of rhetorics of peace and conflict
seriously and engage with the topic deeply. Explain the ways you have accomplished this task.
In this section, read each speech excerpt and analyze the rhetoric to assess: a) the
argument, b) the rhetorical technique used to make that argument, and c) how that
rhetorical technique focuses audiences on a specific type of meaning.
1. George H.W. Bush, January 16, 1991: Address to the Nation on the Invasion of
Iraq
“Saddam Hussein systematically raped, pillaged, and plundered a tiny nation, no threat to his
own. He subjected the people of Kuwait to unspeakable atrocities – and among those maimed
and murdered innocent children.
While the world waited, Saddam sought to add to the chemical weapons arsenal he now
possesses, an infinitely more dangerous weapon of mass destruction—a nuclear weapon.
And while the world waited, while the world talked peace and withdrawal, Saddam Hussein dug
in and moved massive forces into Kuwait.
While the world waited, while Saddam stalled, more damage was being done to the fragile
economies of the Third World, emerging democracies of Eastern Europe, to the entire world,
including to our own economy…
While the world waited, Saddam Hussein met every overture of peace with open contempt.
While the world prayed for peace, Saddam prepared for war.”
A. The Argument:
B. The rhetorical technique or method used:
C. How the rhetoric focuses or advances the desired meaning:
2. Vladimir Putin, May 9, 2022: Victory Parade Speech
“Today, as in the past, you are fighting for our people in Donbass, for the security of our
Motherland, for Russia.
Russia urged the West to hold an honest dialogue in search for meaningful and compromising
solutions, and to take account of each other’s interests. All in vain. NATO countries did not want
to heed us, which means they had totally different plans. And we saw it.
Another punitive operation in Donbass, an invasion of our historic lands, including Crimea, was
openly in the making. Kiev declared that it could attain nuclear weapons. The NATO bloc
launched an active military build-up on the territories adjacent to us.
Thus, an absolutely unacceptable threat to us was steadily being created right on our borders.
There was every indication that a clash with neo-Nazis and Banderites backed by the United
States their minions was unavoidable.
Russia launched a preemptive strike at the aggression. It was a forced, timely, and the only
correct decision. A decision by a sovereign, strong and independent country.”
A. The Argument:
B. The rhetorical technique or method used:
C. How the rhetoric focuses or advances the desired meaning:
3. Volodymyr Zelenksy, May 9, 2022: Victory Day Speech
“There is nothing more dangerous than an insidious enemy, but there is nothing more poisonous
than a feigned friend.” These are the words of the great Ukrainian philosopher Hryhorii
Skovoroda. On February 24, we realized this truth when a feigned friend started a war against
Ukraine.
“This is not a war of two armies. This is a war of two worldviews. The war waged by barbarians
who shell the Skovoroda Museum and believe that their missiles can destroy our philosophy. It
annoys them. It is unfamiliar to them. It scares them. Its essence is that we are free people who
have their own path. Today we are waging war on this path and we will not give anyone a single
piece of our land.
“And we will not allow anyone to annex this victory, we will not allow it to be appropriated. Our
enemy dreamed that we would refuse to celebrate May 9 and the victory over Nazism. So that
the word “denazification” gets a chance. Millions of Ukrainians fought Nazism and went through
a difficult and long journey. The Nazis were expelled from Luhansk, the Nazis were expelled
from Donetsk, and Kherson, Melitopol and Berdyansk were liberated from the occupiers.
“On the Day of Victory over Nazism, we are fighting for a new victory. The road to it is difficult,
but we have no doubt that we will win. What is our advantage over the enemy? We are smarter
by one book. This is a textbook on the history of Ukraine. We would not know grief if all our
enemies could read and draw the right conclusions.
“On February 24, Russia launched an offensive. Treading on the same rake. Every occupier
who comes to our land treads on it. We have been through different wars. But they all had the
same final. Our land was sown with bullets and shells, but no enemy was able to take root here.
Enemy chariots and tanks drove through our fields, but it did not bear fruit. Enemy arrows and
missiles flew in our skies, but no one will be able to overshadow our blue sky.
“There are no shackles that can bind our free spirit. There is no occupier who can take root in
our free land. There is no invader who can rule over our free people. Sooner or later we win.
Despite the horde, despite Nazism, despite the mixture of the first and the second, which is the
current enemy, we win, because this is our land.”
A. The Argument:
B. The rhetorical technique or method used:
C. How the rhetoric focuses or advances the desired meaning:
In this section, you are to answer two questions. You should write approximately 2
paragraphs for each answer.
1. What would an effective anti war discourse look like?
2. Write a short speech outlining your opposition to the US engaging in a new war.