Churchill

I have read the reponses of my classmates that have posted so far, and although slightly different issues have been raised by them, they are all valid and I agree with them.
For me, I found what Churchill had to say very disturbing, to say the least. Not only was the tone of the speech disrespectful and caused me to be very detached from what he said, but his word choice was exreme as well. Not only did he use derogatory terms to describe Americans and Iraqi's, he used them to describe the President as well. Regardless of how a person feels on an issue, and no matter how people feel about the president, Churchill's approach was unappealing to people across the board. His tone and language turned me off, as I'm sure it did others, and it made it impossible for him to reach any kind of audience. As sad as it is to say, I'm sure there are a handful of people out there who agree with what he had to say, but what about trying to tackfully persuade the people who do not already agree with what he is saying? His speech would have been more effective if he just changed his tone and word choice.
Although Churchill provided many examples of logos, he also stated some extreme opinions and comparisons as well. After studying Holocaust history, I found his comparison of Americans (those working in WTC, atleast) as "little Eichmans" absolutely absurd. That comparison eludes to Americans as Nazis and what, each president as Adolf Hitler. These comparisons disturbed me the most. I understand that there have been atrocities that haved occured in Iraq, and yes, 9-11 was less of a strike than what they have endured, but to compare what is happening between us and Iraq as the Genocide that was concocted by the twisted mind of Adolf Hitler that the Germans and Jews endured is sickening.
Yes, he is entitled to his beliefs. I'll agree with that. But from what I understand, I don't see that he hates Americans, yet he conveys that message along with his true message, which is that he wants Americans to realize what is happening in Iraq, feel badly about it, and get it to stop. That message could have been accomplished in a much less offensive way, and it would have reached a lot more people than what it did. No, he is not wrong for voicing his opinion, I just disagree with the way he presented his opinion. Along with what Annie said, he seems to not like Americans or anything about America or what it stands for, so why is he still here? Oh yeah, because in most other countries, he would not be afforded this very right to speak his mind. Overall, I felt his speech was unaffective in getting me to see things his way. The only thing that he accomplished with me is anger and resentment.