第一篇：美国经典英文演讲100篇Cambodian Incursion Address
美国经典英文演讲100篇:Cambodian Incursion Address
Richard M.Nixon
Cambodian Incursion Address
delivered 30 April 1970 from Washington, DC
[AUTHENTICITY CERTIFIED: Text version below transcribed directly from audio.(2)]
Good evening, my fellow Americans.Ten days ago, in my report to the nation on Vietnam, I announced the decision to withdraw an additional 150,000 Americans from Vietnam over the next year.I said then that I was making that decision despite our concern over increased enemy activity in Laos, in Cambodia, and in South Vietnam.And at that time I warned that if I concluded that increased enemy activity in any of these areas endangered the lives of Americans remaining in Vietnam, I would not hesitate to take strong and effective measures to deal with that situation.Despite that warning, North Vietnam has increased its military aggression in all these areas, and particularly in Cambodia.After full consultation with the National Security Council, Ambassador Bunker, General Abrams and my other advisors, I have concluded that the actions of the enemy in the last 10 days clearly endanger the lives of Americans who are in Vietnam now and would constitute an unacceptable risk to those who will be there after withdrawal of another 150, 000.To protect our men who are in Vietnam, and to guarantee the continued success of our withdrawal and Vietnamization program, I have concluded that the time has come for action.Tonight, I shall describe the actions of the enemy, the actions I have ordered to deal with that situation, and the reasons for my decision.Cambodia--a small country of seven million people--has been a neutral nation since the Geneva Agreement of 1954, an agreement, incidentally, which was signed by the government of North Vietnam.American policy since then has been to scrupulously respect the neutrality of the Cambodian people.We have maintained a skeleton diplomatic mission of fewer than 15 in Cambodia’s capital, and that only since last August.For the previous four years, from 1965 to 1969, we did not have any diplomatic mission whatever in Cambodia, and for the past five years we have provided no military assistance whatever and no economic assistance to Cambodia.North Vietnam, however, has not respected that neutrality.For the past five years, as indicated on this map, that you see here, North Vietnam has occupied military sanctuaries all along the Cambodian frontier with South Vietnam.Some of these extend up to 20 miles into Cambodia.The sanctuaries are in red, and as you note, they are on both sides of the border.They are used for hit-and-run attacks on American and South Vietnamese forces in South Vietnam.These Communist-occupied territories contain major base camps, training sites, logistics facilities, weapons and ammunition factories, airstrips, and prisoner of war compounds.And for five years neither the United States nor South Vietnam has moved against these enemy sanctuaries because we did not wish to violate the territory of a neutral nation.Even after the Vietnamese Communists began to expand these sanctuaries four weeks ago, we counseled patience to our South Vietnamese allies and imposed restraints on our own commanders.In contrast to our policy the enemy in the past two weeks has stepped up his guerrilla actions, and he is concentrating his main forces in these sanctuaries that you see in this map, where they are building up to launch massive attacks on our forces and those of South Vietnam.North Vietnam in the last two weeks has stripped away all pretense of respecting the sovereignty or the neutrality of Cambodia.Thousands of their soldiers are invading the country from the sanctuaries.They are encircling the capital of Pnompenh.Coming from these sanctuaries, as you see here, they had moved into Cambodia and are encircling the capital.Cambodia, as a result of this, has sent out a call to the United States, to a number of other nations, for assistance.Because if this enemy effort succeeds, Cambodia would become a vast enemy staging area and a springboard for attacks on South Vietnam along 600 miles of frontier: a refuge where enemy troops could return from combat without fear of retaliation.North Vietnamese men and supplies could then be poured into that country, jeopardizing not only the lives of our own men but the people of South Vietnam as well.Now confronted with this situation we had three options: First, we can do nothing.Well the ultimate result of that course of action is clear.Unless we indulge in wishful thinking, the lives of Americans remaining in Vietnam after our next withdrawal of 150,000 would be gravely threatened.Let us go to the map again.Here is South Vietnam.Here is North Vietnam.North Vietnam already occupies this part of Laos.If North Vietnam also occupied this whole band in Cambodia, or the entire country, it would mean that South Vietnam was completely outflanked and the forces of Americans in this area as well as the South Vietnamese would be in an untenable military position.Our second choice is to provide massive military assistance to Cambodia itself.Now unfortunately, while we deeply sympathize with the plight of seven million Cambodians whose country has been invaded, massive amounts of military assistance could not be rapidly and effectively utilized by this small Cambodian Army against the immediate trap.With other nations we shall do our best to provide the small arms and other equipment which the Cambodian Army of 40,000 needs and can use for its defense.But the aid we will provide will be limited for the purpose of enabling Cambodia to defend its neutrality and not for the purpose of making it an active belligerent on one side or the other.Our third choice is to go to the heart of the trouble.And that means cleaning out major North Vietnamese and Vietcong occupied territories, these sanctuaries which serve as bases for attacks on both Cambodia and American and South Vietnamese forces in South Vietnam.Some of these, incidentally, are as close to Saigon as Baltimore is to Washington.This one, for example, is called the Parrot’s Beak.It’s only 33 miles from Saigon.Now faced with these three options, this is the decision I have made.In co-operation with the armed forces of South Vietnam, attacks are being launched this week to clean out major enemy sanctuaries on the Cambodian-Vietnam border.A major responsibility for the ground operations is being assumed by South Vietnamese forces.For example, the attacks in several areas, including the parrot’s beak that I referred to a moment ago, are exclusively South Vietnamese ground operations, under South Vietnamese command, with the United States providing air and logistical support.There is one area however, immediately above the parrot’s beak where I have concluded that a combined American and South Vietnamese operation is necessary.Tonight, American and South Vietnamese units will attack the headquarters for the entire Communist military operation in South Vietnam.This key control center has been occupied by the North Vietnamese and Vietcong for five years in blatant violation of Cambodia’s neutrality.This is not an invasion of Cambodia.The areas in which these attacks will be launched are completely occupied and controlled by North Vietnamese forces.Our purpose is not to occupy the areas.Once enemy forces are driven out of these sanctuaries, and once their military supplies are destroyed, we will withdraw.These actions are in no way directed to the security interests of any nation.Any government that chooses to use these actions as a pretext for harming relations with the United States will be doing so on its own responsibility and on its own initiative, and we will draw the appropriate conclusions.And now, let me give you the reasons for my decision.A majority of the American people, a majority of you listening to me are for the withdrawal of our forces from Vietnam.The action I have taken tonight is indispensable for the continuing success of that withdrawal program.A majority of the American people want to end this war rather than to have it drag on interminably.The action I have taken tonight will serve that purpose.A majority of the American people want to keep the casualties of our brave men in Vietnam at an absolute minimum.The action I take tonight is essential if we are to accomplish that goal.We take this action not for the purpose of expanding the war into Cambodia, but for the purpose of ending the war in Vietnam, and winning the just peace we all desire.We have made, we will continue to make every possible effort to end this war through negotiation at the conference table rather than through more fighting in the battlefield.Let’s look again at the record.We stopped the bombing of North Vietnam.We have cut air operations by over 20 per cent.We’ve announced the withdrawal of over 250, 000 of our men.We’ve offered to withdraw all of our men if they will withdraw theirs.We’ve offered to negotiate all issues with only one condition: and that is that the future of South Vietnam be determined, not by North Vietnam, and not by the United States, but by the people of South Vietnam themselves.The answer of the enemy has been intransigence at the conference table, belligerence at Hanoi, massive military aggression in Laos and Cambodia and stepped-up attacks in South Vietnam designed to increase American casualties.This attitude has become intolerable.We will not react to this threat to American lives merely by plaintive, diplomatic protests.If we did, the credibility of the United States would be destroyed in every area of the world where only the power of the United States deters aggression.Tonight, I again warn the North Vietnamese that if they continue to escalate the fighting when the United States is withdrawing its forces, I shall meet my responsibility as commander in chief of our armed forces to take the action I consider necessary to defend the security of our American men.The action I have announced tonight puts the leaders of North Vietnam on notice that we will be patient in working for peace.We will be conciliatory at the conference table.But we will not be humiliated.We will not be defeated.We will not allow American men, by the thousands, to be killed by an enemy from privileged sanctuaries.The time came long ago to end this war through peaceful negotiations.We stand ready for those negotiations.We’ve made major efforts, many of which must remain secret.I say tonight all the offers and approaches made previously remain on the conference table whenever Hanoi is ready to negotiate seriously.But if the enemy response to our most conciliatory offers for peaceful negotiation continues to be to increase its attacks and humiliate and defeat us, we shall react accordingly.My fellow Americans, we live in an age of anarchy, both abroad and at home.We see mindless attacks on all the great institutions which have been created by free civilizations in the last 500 years.Even here in the United States, great universities are being systematically destroyed.Small nations all over the world find themselves under attack from within and from without.If, when the chips are down, the world’s most powerful nation--the United States of America--acts like a pitiful, helpless giant, the forces of totalitarianism and anarchy will threaten free nations and free institutions throughout the world.It is not our power, but our will and character that is being tested tonight.The question all Americans must ask and answer tonight is this: Does the richest and strongest nation in the history of the world have the character to meet a direct challenge by a group which rejects every effort to win a just peace, ignores our warning, tramples on solemn agreements, violates the neutrality of an unarmed people, and uses our prisoners as hostages? If we fail to meet this challenge, all other nations will be on notice that despite its overwhelming power the United States when a real crisis comes will be found wanting.During my campaign for the Presidency, I pledged to bring Americans home form Vietnam.They are coming home.I promised to end this war.I shall keep that promise.I promised to win a just peace.I shall keep that promise.We shall avoid a wider war, but we are also determined to put an end to this war.In this room, Woodrow Wilson made the great decisions which led to victory in World War I.Franklin Roosevelt made the decisions which led to our victory in World War II.Dwight D.Eisenhower made decisions which ended the war in Korea and avoided war in the Middle East.John F.Kennedy, in his finest hour, made the great decision which removed Soviet nuclear missiles from Cuba and the western hemisphere.I have noted that there’s been a great deal of discussion with regard to this decision that I have made.And I should point out I do not contend that it is in the same magnitude as these decisions that I have just mentioned.But between those decisions and this decision, there is a difference that is very fundamental.In those decisions the American people were not assailed by counsels of doubt and defeat from some of the most widely known opinion leaders of the nation.I have noted, for example, that a Republican Senator has said that this action I have taken means that my party has lost all chance of winning the November elections.And others are saying today that this move against enemy sanctuaries will make me a one-term President.No one is more aware than I am of the political consequences of the action I have taken.It is tempting to take the easy political path, to blame this war on previous Administrations, and to bring all of our men home immediately--regardless of the consequences, even though that would mean defeat for the United States;to desert 18 million South Vietnamese people who have put their trust in us;to expose them to the same slaughter and savagery which the leaders of North Vietnam inflicted on hundreds of thousands of North Vietnamese who chose freedom when the Communists took over North Vietnam in 1954.To get peace at any price now, even though I know that a peace of humiliation for the United States would lead to a bigger war or surrender later.I have rejected all political considerations in making this decision.Whether my party gains in November is nothing compared to the lives of 400,000 brave Americans fighting for our country and for the cause of peace and freedom in Vietnam.Whether I may be a one-term President is insignificant compared to whether by our failure to act in this crisis the United States proves itself to be unworthy to lead the forces of freedom in this critical period in world history.I would rather be a one-term president and do what I believe was right than to be a two-term President at the cost of seeing America become a second-rate power and to see this nation accept the first defeat in its proud 190-year history.I realize in this war there are honest, deep differences in this country about whether we should have become involved;that there are differences to how the war should have been conducted.But the decision I announce tonight transcends those differences, for the lives of American men are involved.The opportunity for 150,000 Americans to come home in the next 12 months is involved.The future of 18-million people in South Vietnam and 7 million people in Cambodia is involved.The possibility of winning a just peace in Vietnam and in the Pacific is at stake.It is customary to conclude a speech from the White House by asking support for the President of the United States.Tonight, I depart from that precedent.What I ask is far more important.I ask for your support for our brave men fighting tonight halfway around the world, not for territory, not for glory, but so that their younger brothers and their sons and your sons can have a chance to grow up in a world of peace, and freedom, and justice.Thank you, and good night.
第二篇：美国经典英文演讲100篇
美国经典英文演讲100篇:Brandenburg Gate Address
时间:2008-6-12 10:19:20 来源:本站原创
作者:echo
(女宇航员选拔标准 | 招聘英语编辑)
进入MP3下载页面
下载到我的手机(下载播放软件 | 如不能播放请点击此处)
Ronald Reagan
Remarks at the Brandenburg Gate
delivered 12 June 1987, West Berlin
[AUTHENTICITY CERTIFIED: Text version below transcribed directly from audio.(2)]
Thank you.Thank you, very much.Chancellor Kohl, Governing Mayor Diepgen, ladies and gentlemen: Twenty four years ago, President John F.Kennedy visited Berlin, and speaking to the people of this city and the world at the city hall.Well since then two other presidents have come, each in his turn to Berlin.And today, I, myself, make my second visit to your city.We come to Berlin, we American Presidents, because it's our duty to speak in this place of freedom.But I must confess, we’re drawn here by other things as well;by the feeling of history in this city--more than 500 years older than our own nation;by the beauty of the Grunewald and the Tiergarten;most of all, by your courage and determination.Perhaps the composer, Paul Linke, understood something about American Presidents.You see, like so many Presidents before me, I come here today because wherever I go, whatever I do: “Ich hab noch einen Koffer in Berlin” [I still have a suitcase in Berlin.]
Our gathering today is being broadcast throughout Western Europe and North America.I understand that it is being seen and heard as well in the East.To those listening throughout Eastern Europe, I extend my warmest greetings and the good will of the American people.To those listening in East Berlin, a special word: Although I cannot be with you, I address my remarks to you just as surely as to those standing here before me.For I join you, as I join your fellow countrymen in the West, in this firm, this unalterable belief: Es gibt nur ein Berlin.[There is only one Berlin.]
Behind me stands a wall that encircles the free sectors of this city, part of a vast system of barriers that divides the entire continent of Europe.From the Baltic South, those barriers cut across Germany in a gash of barbed wire, concrete, dog runs, and guard towers.Farther south, there may be no visible, no obvious wall.But there remain armed guards and checkpoints all the same--still a restriction on the right to travel, still an instrument to impose upon ordinary men and women the will of a totalitarian state.Yet, it is here in Berlin where the wall emerges most clearly;here, cutting across your city, where the news photo and the television screen have imprinted this brutal division of a continent upon the mind of the world.Standing before the Brandenburg Gate, every man is a German separated from his fellow men.Every man is a Berliner, forced to look upon a scar.President Von Weizsäcker has said, “The German question is open as long as the Brandenburg Gate is closed.” Well today--today I say: As long as this gate is closed, as long as this scar of a wall is permitted to stand, it is not the German question alone that remains open, but the question of freedom for all mankind.Yet, I do not come here to lament.For I find in Berlin a message of hope, even in the shadow of this wall, a message of triumph.In this season of spring in 1945, the people of Berlin emerged from their air-raid shelters to find devastation.Thousands of miles away, the people of the United States reached out to help.And in 1947 Secretary of State--as you've been told--George Marshall announced the creation of what would become known as the Marshall Plan.Speaking precisely 40 years ago this month, he said: “Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine, but against hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos.”
In the Reichstag a few moments ago, I saw a display commemorating this 40th anniversary of the Marshall Plan.I was struck by a sign--the sign on a burnt-out, gutted structure that was being rebuilt.I understand that Berliners of my own generation can remember seeing signs like it dotted throughout the western sectors of the city.The sign read simply: “The Marshall Plan is helping here to strengthen the free world.” A strong, free world in the West--that dream became real.Japan rose from ruin to become an economic giant.Italy, France, Belgium--virtually every nation in Western Europe saw political and economic rebirth;the European Community was founded.In West Germany and here in Berlin, there took place an economic miracle, the Wirtschaftswunder.Adenauer, Erhard, Reuter, and other leaders understood the practical importance of liberty--that just as truth can flourish only when the journalist is given freedom of speech, so prosperity can come about only when the farmer and businessman enjoy economic freedom.The German leaders--the German leaders reduced tariffs, expanded free trade, lowered taxes.From 1950 to 1960 alone, the standard of living in West Germany and Berlin doubled.Where four decades ago there was rubble, today in West Berlin there is the greatest industrial output of any city in Germany: busy office blocks, fine homes and apartments, proud avenues, and the spreading lawns of parkland.Where a city's culture seemed to have been destroyed, today there are two great universities, orchestras and an opera, countless theaters, and museums.Where there was want, today there's abundance--food, clothing, automobiles--the wonderful goods of the Kudamm.¹ From devastation, from utter ruin, you Berliners have, in freedom, rebuilt a city that once again ranks as one of the greatest on earth.Now the Soviets may have had other plans.But my friends, there were a few things the Soviets didn't count on: Berliner Herz, Berliner Humor, ja, und Berliner Schnauze.[Berliner heart, Berliner humor, yes, and a Berliner Schnauze.²]
In the 1950s--In the 1950s Khrushchev predicted: “We will bury you.”
But in the West today, we see a free world that has achieved a level of prosperity and well-being unprecedented in all human history.In the Communist world, we see failure, technological backwardness, declining standards of health, even want of the most basic kind--too little food.Even today, the Soviet Union still cannot feed itself.After these four decades, then, there stands before the entire world one great and inescapable conclusion: Freedom leads to prosperity.Freedom replaces the ancient hatreds among the nations with comity and peace.Freedom is the victor.And now--now the Soviets themselves may, in a limited way, be coming to understand the importance of freedom.We hear much from Moscow about a new policy of reform and openness.Some political prisoners have been released.Certain foreign news broadcasts are no longer being jammed.Some economic enterprises have been permitted to operate with greater freedom from state control.Are these the beginnings of profound changes in the Soviet state? Or are they token gestures intended to raise false hopes in the West, or to strengthen the Soviet system without changing it? We welcome change and openness;for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty--the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace.There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace.General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate.Mr.Gorbachev, open this gate.Mr.Gorbachev--Mr.Gorbachev, tear down this wall!
I understand the fear of war and the pain of division that afflict this continent, and I pledge to you my country's efforts to help overcome these burdens.To be sure, we in the West must resist Soviet expansion.So, we must maintain defenses of unassailable strength.Yet we seek peace;so we must strive to reduce arms on both sides.Beginning 10 years ago, the Soviets challenged the Western alliance with a grave new threat, hundreds of new and more deadly SS-20 nuclear missiles capable of striking every capital in Europe.The Western alliance responded by committing itself to a counter-deployment(unless the Soviets agreed to negotiate a better solution)--namely, the elimination of such weapons on both sides.For many months, the Soviets refused to bargain in earnestness.As the alliance, in turn, prepared to go forward with its counter-deployment, there were difficult days, days of protests like those during my 1982 visit to this city;and the Soviets later walked away from the table.But through it all, the alliance held firm.And I invite those who protested then--I invite those who protest today--to mark this fact: Because we remained strong, the Soviets came back to the table.Because we remained strong, today we have within reach the possibility, not merely of limiting the growth of arms, but of eliminating, for the first time, an entire class of nuclear weapons from the face of the earth.As I speak, NATO ministers are meeting in Iceland to review the progress of our proposals for eliminating these weapons.At the talks in Geneva, we have also proposed deep cuts in strategic offensive weapons.And the Western allies have likewise made far-reaching proposals to reduce the danger of conventional war and to place a total ban on chemical weapons.While we pursue these arms reductions, I pledge to you that we will maintain the capacity to deter Soviet aggression at any level at which it might occur.And in cooperation with many of our allies, the United States is pursuing the Strategic Defense Initiative--research to base deterrence not on the threat of offensive retaliation, but on defenses that truly defend;on systems, in short, that will not target populations, but shield them.By these means we seek to increase the safety of Europe and all the world.But we must remember a crucial fact: East and West do not mistrust each other because we are armed;we are armed because we mistrust each other.And our differences are not about weapons but about liberty.When President Kennedy spoke at the City Hall those 24 years ago, freedom was encircled;Berlin was under siege.And today, despite all the pressures upon this city, Berlin stands secure in its liberty.And freedom itself is transforming the globe.In the Philippines, in South and Central America, democracy has been given a rebirth.Throughout the Pacific, free markets are working miracle after miracle of economic growth.In the industrialized nations, a technological revolution is taking place, a revolution marked by rapid, dramatic advances in computers and telecommunications.In Europe, only one nation and those it controls refuse to join the community of freedom.Yet in this age of redoubled economic growth, of information and innovation, the Soviet Union faces a choice: It must make fundamental changes, or it will become obsolete.Today, thus, represents a moment of hope.We in the West stand ready to cooperate with the East to promote true openness, to break down barriers that separate people, to create a safer, freer world.And surely there is no better place than Berlin, the meeting place of East and West, to make a start.Free people of Berlin: Today, as in the past, the United States stands for the strict observance and full implementation of all parts of the Four Power Agreement of 1971.Let us use this occasion, the 750th anniversary of this city, to usher in a new era, to seek a still fuller, richer life for the Berlin of the future.Together, let us maintain and develop the ties between the Federal Republic and the Western sectors of Berlin, which is permitted by the 1971 agreement.And I invite Mr.Gorbachev: Let us work to bring the Eastern and Western parts of the city closer together, so that all the inhabitants of all Berlin can enjoy the benefits that come with life in one of the great cities of the world.To open Berlin still further to all Europe, East and West, let us expand the vital air access to this city, finding ways of making commercial air service to Berlin more convenient, more comfortable, and more economical.We look to the day when West Berlin can become one of the chief aviation hubs in all central Europe.With--With our French--With our French and British partners, the United States is prepared to help bring international meetings to Berlin.It would be only fitting for Berlin to serve as the site of United Nations meetings, or world conferences on human rights and arms control, or other issues that call for international cooperation.There is no better way to establish hope for the future than to enlighten young minds, and we would be honored to sponsor summer youth exchanges, cultural events, and other programs for young Berliners from the East.Our French and British friends, I'm certain, will do the same.And it's my hope that an authority can be found in East Berlin to sponsor visits from young people of the Western sectors.One final proposal, one close to my heart: Sport represents a source of enjoyment and ennoblement, and you may have noted that the Republic of Korea--South Korea--has offered to permit certain events of the 1988 Olympics to take place in the North.International sports competitions of all kinds could take place in both parts of this city.And what better way to demonstrate to the world the openness of this city than to offer in some future year to hold the Olympic games here in Berlin, East and West.In these four decades, as I have said, you Berliners have built a great city.You've done so in spite of threats--the Soviet attempts to impose the East-mark, the blockade.Today the city thrives in spite of the challenges implicit in the very presence of this wall.What keeps you here? Certainly there's a great deal to be said for your fortitude, for your defiant courage.But I believe there's something deeper, something that involves Berlin's whole look and feel and way of life--not mere sentiment.No one could live long in Berlin without being completely disabused of illusions.Something, instead, that has seen the difficulties of life in Berlin but chose to accept them, that continues to build this good and proud city in contrast to a surrounding totalitarian presence, that refuses to release human energies or aspirations, something that speaks with a powerful voice of affirmation, that says “yes” to this city, yes to the future, yes to freedom.In a word, I would submit that what keeps you in Berlin--is “love.”
Love both profound and abiding.Perhaps this gets to the root of the matter, to the most fundamental distinction of all between East and West.The totalitarian world produces backwardness because it does such violence to the spirit, thwarting the human impulse to create, to enjoy, to worship.The totalitarian world finds even symbols of love and of worship an affront.Years ago, before the East Germans began rebuilding their churches, they erected a secular structure: the television tower at Alexander Platz.Virtually ever since, the authorities have been working to correct what they view as the tower's one major flaw: treating the glass sphere at the top with paints and chemicals of every kind.Yet even today when the sun strikes that sphere, that sphere that towers over all Berlin, the light makes the sign of the cross.There in Berlin, like the city itself, symbols of love, symbols of worship, cannot be suppressed.As I looked out a moment ago from the Reichstag, that embodiment of German unity, I noticed words crudely spray-painted upon the wall, perhaps by a young Berliner(quote):
“This wall will fall.Beliefs become reality.”
Yes, across Europe, this wall will fall, for it cannot withstand faith;it cannot withstand truth.The wall cannot withstand freedom.And I would like, before I close, to say one word.I have read, and I have been questioned since I've been here about certain demonstrations against my coming.And I would like to say just one thing, and to those who demonstrate so.I wonder if they have ever asked themselves that if they should have the kind of government they apparently seek, no one would ever be able to do what they're doing again.Thank you and God bless you all.Thank you.美国经典英文演讲100篇:Oklahoma Bombing Memorial Address
时间:2008-6-12 10:19:08 来源:本站原创
作者:echo
(女宇航员选拔标准 | 招聘英语编辑)
进入MP3下载页面
下载到我的手机(下载播放软件 | 如不能播放请点击此处)
William Jefferson Clinton
Oklahoma Bombing Memorial Prayer Service Address
delivered 23 April 1995 in Oklahoma City, OK
[AUTHENTICITY CERTIFIED: Text version below transcribed directly from audio.(2)]
Thank you very much, Governor Keating and Mrs.Keating, Reverend Graham, to the families of those who have been lost and wounded, to the people of Oklahoma City, who have endured so much, and the people of this wonderful state, to all of you who are here as our fellow Americans.I am honored to be here today to represent the American people.But I have to tell you that Hillary and I also come as parents, as husband and wife, as people who were your neighbors for some of the best years of our lives.Today our nation joins with you in grief.We mourn with you.We share your hope against hope that some may still survive.We thank all those who have worked so heroically to save lives and to solve this crime--those here in Oklahoma and those who are all across this great land, and many who left their own lives to come here to work hand in hand with you.We pledge to do all we can to help you heal the injured, to rebuild this city, and to bring to justice those who did this evil.This terrible sin took the lives of our American family, innocent children in that building, only because their parents were trying to be good parents as well as good workers;citizens in the building going about their daily business;and many there who served the rest of us--who worked to help the elderly and the disabled, who worked to support our farmers and our veterans, who worked to enforce our laws and to protect us.Let us say clearly, they served us well, and we are grateful.But for so many of you they were also neighbors and friends.You saw them at church or the PTA meetings, at the civic clubs, at the ball park.You know them in ways that all the rest of America could not.And to all the members of the families here present who have suffered loss, though we share your grief, your pain is unimaginable, and we know that.We cannot undo it.That is God's work.Our words seem small beside the loss you have endured.But I found a few I wanted to share today.I've received a lot of letters in these last terrible days.One stood out because it came from a young widow and a mother of three whose own husband was murdered with over 200 other Americans when Pan Am 103 was shot down.Here is what that woman said I should say to you today:
The anger you feel is valid, but you must not allow yourselves to be consumed by it.The hurt you feel must not be allowed to turn into hate, but instead into the search for justice.The loss you feel must not paralyze your own lives.Instead, you must try to pay tribute to your loved ones by continuing to do all the things they left undone, thus ensuring they did not die in vain.Wise words from one who also knows.You have lost too much, but you have not lost everything.And you have certainly not lost America, for we will stand with you for as many tomorrows as it takes.If ever we needed evidence of that, I could only recall the words of Governor and Mrs.Keating: “If anybody thinks that Americans are mostly mean and selfish, they ought to come to Oklahoma.If anybody thinks Americans have lost the capacity for love and caring and courage, they ought to come to Oklahoma.”
To all my fellow Americans beyond this hall, I say, one thing we owe those who have sacrificed is the duty to purge ourselves of the dark forces which gave rise to this evil.They are forces that threaten our common peace, our freedom, our way of life.Let us teach our children that the God of comfort is also the God of righteousness: Those who trouble their own house will inherit the wind.¹ Justice will prevail.Let us let our own children know that we will stand against the forces of fear.When there is talk of hatred, let us stand up and talk against it.When there is talk of violence, let us stand up and talk against it.In the face of death, let us honor life.As St.Paul admonished us, Let us “not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”²
Yesterday, Hillary and I had the privilege of speaking with some children of other federal employees--children like those who were lost here.And one little girl said something we will never forget.She said, “We should all plant a tree in memory of the children.” So this morning before we got on the plane to come here, at the White House, we planted that tree in honor of the children of Oklahoma.It was a dogwood with its wonderful spring flower and its deep, enduring roots.It embodies the lesson of the Psalms--that the life of a good person is like a tree whose leaf does not wither.³
My fellow Americans, a tree takes a long time to grow, and wounds take a long time to heal.But we must begin.Those who are lost now belong to God.Some day we will be with them.But until that happens, their legacy must be our lives.Thank you all, and God bless you.
第三篇：美国经典英文演讲一百篇
美国20世纪经典英语演讲100篇（MP3+文本）
· · · ·
· · · · ·
· · · · · · · · ·
· · ·
· · · · · ·
· · · · ·
· ·
· ·
· · · · ·
· · · · · · ·
· ·
· · ·
·
· · · · · · ·
第四篇：美国经典英文演讲100篇1992_DNC_Address
美国经典英文演讲100篇:1992 DNC Address
1992 Democratic National Convention Address
[AUTHENTICITY CERTIFIED: Text version below transcribed directly from audio.(2)]
I'm Elizabeth Glaser.Eleven years ago, while giving birth to my first child, I hemorrhaged and was transfused with seven pints of blood.Four years later, I found out that I had been infected with the AIDS virus and had unknowingly passed it to my daughter, Ariel, through my breast milk, and my son, Jake, in utero.Twenty years ago I wanted to be at the Democratic Convention because it was a way to participate in my country.Today, I am here because it's a matter of life and death.Exactly--Exactly four years ago my daughter died of AIDS.She did not survive the Reagan Administration.I am here because my son and I may not survive four more years of leaders who say they care, but do nothing.I--I am in a race with the clock.This is not about being a Republican or an Independent or a Democrat.It's about the future--for each and every one of us.I started out just a mom--fighting for the life of her child.But along the way I learned how unfair America can be today, not just for people who have HIV, but for many, many people--poor people, gay people, people of color, children.A strange spokesperson for such a group: a well-to-do white woman.But I have learned my lesson the hard way, and I know that America has lost her path and is at risk of losing her soul.America wake up: We are all in a struggle between life and death.I understand--I understand the sense of frustration and despair in our country, because I know firsthand about shouting for help and getting no answer.I went to Washington to tell Presidents Reagan and Bush that much, much more had to be done for AIDS research and care, and that children couldn't be forgotten.The first time, when nothing happened, I thought, “They just didn't hear me.” The second time, when nothing happened, I thought, “Maybe I didn't shout loud enough.” But now I realize they don't hear because they don't want to listen.When you cry for help and no one listens, you start to lose your hope.I began to lose faith in America.I felt my country was letting me down--and it was.This is not the America I was raised to be proud of.I was
raised to believe that other's problems were my problems as well.But when I tell most people about HIV, in hopes that they will help and care, I see the look in their eyes: “It's not my problem,” they're thinking.Well, it's everyone's problem and we need a leader who will tell us that.We need a visionary to guide us--to say it wasn't all right for Ryan White to be banned from school because he had AIDS, to say it wasn't alright for a man or a woman to be denied a job because they're infected with this virus.We need a leader who is truly committed to educating us.I believe in America, but not with a leadership of selfishness and greed--where the wealthy get health care and insurance and the poor don't.Do you know--Do you know how much my AIDS care costs? Over 40,000 dollars a year.Someone without insurance can't afford this.Even the drugs that I hope will keep me alive are out of reach for others.Is their life any less valuable? Of course not.This is not the America I was raised to be proud of--where rich people get care and drugs that poor people can't.We need health care for all.We need a leader who will say this and do something about it.I believe in America, but not a leadership that talks about problems but is incapable of solving them--two HIV commission reports with recommendations about what to do to solve this crisis sitting on shelves, gathering dust.We need a leader who will not only listen to these recommendations, but implement them.I believe in America, but not with a leadership that doesn't hold government accountable.I go to Washington to the National Institutes of Health and say, “Show me what you're doing on HIV.” They hate it when I come because I try to tell them how to do it better.But that's why I love being a taxpayer, because it's my money and they must feel accountable.I believe in an America where our leaders talk straight.When anyone tells President Bush that the battle against AIDS is seriously under-funded, he juggles the numbers to mislead the public into thinking we're spending twice as much as we really are.While they play games with numbers, people are dying.I believe in America, but an America where there is a light in every home.A thousand points of light just wasn't enough: My house has been dark for too long.Once every generation, history brings us to an important crossroads.Sometimes in life there is that moment when it's possible to make a change for the better.This is one of those moments.For me, this is not politics.This is a crisis of caring.In this hall is the future--women, men of all colors saying, “Take America back.” We are--We are just real people wanting a more hopeful life.But words and ideas are not enough.Good thoughts won't save my family.What's the point of caring if we don't do something about it? A President and a Congress that can work together so we can get out of this gridlock and move ahead, because I don't win my war if the President cares and the Congress, or if the Congress cares and the President doesn't support the ideas.The people in this hall this week, the Democratic Party, all of us can begin to deliver that partnership, and in November we can all bring it home.My daughter lived seven years, and in her last year, when she couldn't walk or talk, her wisdom shone through.She taught me to love, when all I wanted to do was hate.She taught me to help others, when all I wanted to do was help myself.She taught me to be brave, when all I felt was fear.My daughter and I loved each other with simplicity.America, we can do the same.This was the country that offered hope.This was the place where dreams could come true, not just economic dreams, but dreams of freedom, justice, and equality.We all need to hope that our dreams can come true.I challenge you to make it happen, because all our lives, not just mine, depend on it.Thank you.
第五篇：美国经典英文演讲100篇Truth_and_Tolerance_in_America
美国经典英文演讲100篇: “Truth and Tolerance in America”
Edward M.Kennedy Faith, Truth and Tolerance in America.Actually, a number of people in Washington were surprised that I was invited to speak here--and even more surprised when I accepted the invitation.They seem to think that it’s easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than for a Kennedy to come to the campus of Liberty Baptist College.In honor of our meeting, I have asked Dr.Falwell, as your Chancellor, to permit all the students an extra hour next Saturday night before curfew.And in return, I have promised to watch the Old Time Gospel Hour next Sunday morning.I realize that my visit may be a little controversial.But as many of you have heard, Dr.Falwell recently sent me a membership in the Moral Majority--and I didn't even apply for it.And I wonder if that means that I'm a member in good standing.[Falwell: Somewhat] Somewhat, he says.This is, of course, a nonpolitical speech which is probably best under the circumstances.Since I am not a candidate for President, it would certainly be inappropriate to ask for your support in this election and probably inaccurate to thank you for it in the last one.I have come here to discuss my beliefs about faith and country, tolerance and truth in America.I know we begin with certain disagreements;I strongly suspect that at the end of the evening some of our disagreements will remain.But I also hope that tonight and in the months and years ahead, we will always respect the right of others to differ, that we will never lose sight of our own fallibility, that we will view ourselves with a sense of
perspective and a sense of humor.After all, in the New Testament, even the Disciples had to be taught to look first to the beam in their own eyes, and only then to the mote in their neighbor’s eyes.I am mindful of that counsel.I am an American and a Catholic;I love my country and treasure my faith.But I do not assume that my conception of patriotism or policy is invariably correct, or that my convictions about religion should command any greater respect than any other faith in this pluralistic society.I believe there surely is such a thing as truth, but who among us can claim a monopoly on it? There are those who do, and their own words testify to their intolerance.For example, because the Moral Majority has worked with members of different denominations, one fundamentalist group has denounced Dr.Falwell for hastening the ecumenical church and for “yoking together with Roman Catholics, Mormons, and others.” I am relieved that Dr.Falwell does not regard that as a sin, and on this issue, he himself has become the target of narrow prejudice.When people agree on public policy, they ought to be able to work together, even while they worship in diverse ways.For truly we are all yoked together as Americans, and the yoke is the happy one of individual freedom and mutual respect.But in saying that, we cannot and should not turn aside from a deeper and more pressing question--which is whether and how religion should influence government.A generation ago, a presidential candidate had to prove his independence of undue religious influence in public life, and he had to do so partly at the insistence of evangelical Protestants.John Kennedy said at that time: “I believe in an America where there is no religious bloc voting of any kind.” Only twenty years later, another candidate was appealing to a[n] evangelical meeting as a religious bloc.Ronald Reagan said to 15 thousand evangelicals at the Roundtable in Dallas: “ I know that you can’t endorse me.I want you to know I endorse you and what you are doing.”
To many Americans, that pledge was a sign and a symbol of a dangerous breakdown in the separation of church and state.Yet this principle, as vital as it is, is not a simplistic and rigid command.Separation of church and state cannot mean an absolute separation between moral principles and political power.The challenge today is to recall the origin of the principle, to define its purpose, and refine its application to the politics of the present.The founders of our nation had long and bitter experience with the state, as both the agent and the adversary of particular religious views.In colonial Maryland, Catholics paid a double land tax, and in Pennsylvania they had to list their names on a public roll--an ominous precursor of the first Nazi laws against the Jews.And Jews in turn faced discrimination in all of the thirteen original Colonies.Massachusetts exiled Roger Williams and his congregation for contending that civil government had no right to enforce the Ten Commandments.Virginia harassed Baptist teachers, and also established a religious test for public service, writing into the law that no “popish followers” could hold any office.But during the Revolution, Catholics, Jews, and Non-Conformists all rallied to the cause and fought valiantly for the American commonwealth--for John Winthrop’s “city upon a hill.” Afterwards, when the Constitution was ratified and then amended, the framers gave freedom for all religion, and from any established religion, the very first place in the Bill of Rights.Indeed the framers themselves professed very different faiths: Washington was an Episcopalian, Jefferson a deist, and Adams a Calvinist.And although he had earlier opposed toleration, John Adams later contributed to the building of Catholic churches, and so did George Washington.Thomas Jefferson said his proudest achievement was not the presidency, or the writing the Declaration of Independence, but drafting the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom.He stated the vision of the first Americans and the First Amendment very clearly: “The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time.”
The separation of church and state can sometimes be frustrating for women and men of religious faith.They may be tempted to misuse government in order to impose a value which they cannot persuade others to accept.But once we succumb to that temptation, we step onto a slippery slope where everyone’s freedom is at risk.Those who favor censorship should recall that one of the first books ever burned was the first English translation of the Bible.As President Eisenhower warned in 1953, “Don’t join the book burners...the right to say ideas, the right to record them, and the right to have them accessible to others is unquestioned--or this isn’t America.” And if that right is denied, at some future day the torch can be turned against any other book or any other belief.Let us never forget: Today’s Moral Majority could become tomorrow’s persecuted minority.The danger is as great now as when the founders of the nation first saw it.In 1789, their fear was of factional strife among dozens of denominations.Today there are hundreds--and perhaps even thousands of faiths--and millions of Americans who are outside any fold.Pluralism obviously does not and cannot mean that all of them are right;but it does mean that there are areas where government cannot and should not decide what it is wrong to believe, to think, to read, and to do.As Professor Larry Tribe, one of the nation’s leading constitutional scholars has written, “Law in a non-theocratic state cannot measure religious truth, nor can the state impose it.“ The real transgression occurs when religion wants government to tell citizens how to live uniquely personal parts of their lives.The failure of Prohibition proves the futility of such an attempt when a majority or even a substantial minority happens to disagree.Some questions may be inherently individual ones, or people may be sharply divided about whether they are.In such cases, like Prohibition and abortion, the proper role of religion is to appeal to the conscience of the individual, not the coercive power of the state.But there are other questions which are inherently public in nature, which we must decide together as a nation, and where
religion and religious values can and should speak to our common conscience.The issue of nuclear war is a compelling example.It is a moral issue;it will be decided by government, not by each individual;and to give any effect to the moral values of their creed, people of faith must speak directly about public policy.The Catholic bishops and the Reverend Billy Graham have every right to stand for the nuclear freeze, and Dr.Falwell has every right to stand against it.There must be standards for the exercise of such leadership, so that the obligations of belief will not be debased into an opportunity for mere political advantage.But to take a stand at all when a question is both properly public and truly moral is to stand in a long and honored tradition.Many of the great evangelists of the 1800s were in the forefront of the abolitionist movement.In our own time, the Reverend William Sloane Coffin challenged the morality of the war in Vietnam.Pope John XXIII renewed the Gospel’s call to social justice.And Dr.Martin Luther King, Jr.who was the greatest prophet of this century, awakened our nation and its conscience to the evil of racial segregation.Their words have blessed our world.And who now wishes they had been silent? Who would bid Pope John Paul [II] to quiet his voice against the oppression in Eastern Europe, the violence in Central America, or the crying needs of the landless, the hungry, and those who are tortured in so many of the dark political prisons of our time? President Kennedy, who said that “no religious body should seek to impose its will,” also urged religious leaders to state their views and give their commitment when the public debate involved ethical issues.In drawing the line between imposed will and essential witness, we keep church and state separate, and at the same time we recognize that the City of God should speak to the civic duties of men and women.There are four tests which draw that line and define the difference.First, we must respect the integrity of religion itself.People of conscience should be careful how they deal in the word of their Lord.In our own history, religion has been falsely invoked to sanction prejudice--even slavery--to condemn labor unions and public spending for the poor.I believe that the prophecy, ”The poor you have always with you” is an indictment, not a commandment.And I respectfully suggest that God has taken no position on the Department of Education--and that a balanced budget constitutional amendment is a matter of economic analysis, and not heavenly appeals.Religious values cannot be excluded from every public issue;but not every public issue involves religious values.And how ironic it is when those very values are denied in the name of religion.For example, we are sometimes told that it is wrong to feed the hungry, but that mission is an explicit mandate given to us in the 25th chapter of Matthew.Second, we must respect the independent judgments of conscience.Those who proclaim moral and religious values can offer counsel, but they should not casually treat a position on a public issue as a test of fealty to faith.Just as I disagree with the Catholic bishops on tuition tax credits--which I oppose--so other Catholics can and do disagree with the hierarchy, on the basis of honest conviction, on the question of the nuclear freeze.Thus, the controversy about the Moral Majority arises not only from its views, but from its name--which, in the minds of many, seems to imply that only one set of public policies is moral and only one majority can possibly be right.Similarly, people are and should be perplexed when the religious lobbying group Christian Voice publishes a morality index of congressional voting records, which judges the morality of senators by their attitude toward Zimbabwe and Taiwan.Let me offer another illustration.Dr.Falwell has written--and I quote: “To stand against Israel is to stand against God.” Now
there is no one in the Senate who has stood more firmly for Israel than I have.Yet, I do not doubt the faith of those on the other side.Their error is not one of religion, but of policy.And I hope to be able to persuade them that they are wrong in terms of both America’s interest and the justice of Israel’s cause.Respect for conscience is most in jeopardy, and the harmony of our diverse society is most at risk, when we re-establish, directly or indirectly, a religious test for public office.That relic of the colonial era, which is specifically prohibited in the Constitution, has reappeared in recent years.After the last election, the Reverend James Robison warned President Reagan no to surround himself, as president before him had, “with the counsel of the ungodly.” I utterly reject any such standard for any position anywhere in public service.Two centuries ago, the victims were Catholics and Jews.In the 1980s the victims could be atheists;in some other day or decade, they could be the members of the Thomas Road Baptist Church.Indeed, in 1976 I regarded it as unworthy and un-American when some people said or hinted that Jimmy Carter should not be president because he was a born again Christian.We must never judge the fitness of individuals to govern on the bas[is] of where they worship, whether they follow Christ or Moses, whether they are called “born again” or “ungodly.” Where it is right to apply moral values to public life, let all of us avoid the temptation to be self-righteous and absolutely certain of ourselves.And if that temptation ever comes, let us recall Winston Churchill’s humbling description of an intolerant and inflexible colleague: “There but for the grace of God goes God.”
Third, in applying religious values, we must respect the integrity of public debate.In that debate, faith is no substitute for facts.Critics may oppose the nuclear freeze for what they regard as moral reasons.They have every right to argue that any negotiation with the Soviets is wrong, or that any accommodation with them sanctions their crimes, or that no agreement can be good enough and therefore all agreements only increase the chance of war.I do not believe that, but it surely does not violate the
standard of fair public debate to say it.What does violate that standard, what the opponents of the nuclear freeze have no right to do, is to assume that they are infallible, and so any argument against the freeze will do, whether it is false or true.The nuclear freeze proposal is not unilateral, but bilateral--with equal restraints on the United States and the Soviet Union.The nuclear freeze does not require that we trust the Russians, but demands full and effective verification.The nuclear freeze does not concede a Soviet lead in nuclear weapons, but recognizes that human beings in each great power already have in their fallible hands the overwhelming capacity to remake into a pile of radioactive rubble the earth which God has made.There is no morality in the mushroom cloud.The black rain of nuclear ashes will fall alike on the just and the unjust.And then it will be too late to wish that we had done the real work of this atomic age--which is to seek a world that is neither red nor dead.I am perfectly prepared to debate the nuclear freeze on policy grounds, or moral ones.But we should not be forced to discuss phantom issues or false charges.They only deflect us form the urgent task of deciding how best to prevent a planet divided from becoming a planet destroyed.And it does not advance the debate to contend that the arms race is more divine punishment than human problem, or that in any event, the final days are near.As Pope John said two decades ago, at the opening of the Second Vatican Council: “We must beware of those who burn with zeal, but are not endowed with much sense...we must disagree with the prophets of doom, who are always forecasting disasters, as though the end of the earth was at hand.” The message which echoes across the years is very clear: The earth is still here;and if we wish to keep it, a prophecy of doom is no alternative to a policy of arms control.Fourth, and finally, we must respect the motives of those who exercise their right to disagree.We sorely test our ability to live together if we readily question each other’s integrity.It may be harder to restrain our feelings when moral principles are at stake, for they go to the deepest wellsprings of our being.But the more our feelings diverge, the more deeply felt they are, the greater is our obligation to grant the sincerity and essential decency of our fellow citizens on the other side.Those who favor E.R.A [Equal Rights Amendment] are not “antifamily” or “blasphemers.” And their purpose is not “an attack on the Bible.” Rather, we believe this is the best way to fix in our national firmament the ideal that not only all men, but all people are created equal.Indeed, my mother, who strongly favors E.R.A., would be surprised to hear that she is anti-family.For my part, I think of the amendment’s opponents as wrong on the issue, but not as lacking in moral character I could multiply the instances of name-calling, sometimes on both sides.Dr.Falwell is not a “warmonger.” And “liberal clergymen” are not, as the Moral Majority suggested in a recent letter, equivalent to “Soviet sympathizers.” The critics of official prayer in public schools are not “Pharisees”;many of them are both civil libertarians and believers, who think that families should pray more at home with their children, and attend church and synagogue more faithfully.And people are not sexist because they stand against abortion, and they are not murderers because they believe in free choice.Nor does it help anyone’s cause to shout such epithets, or to try and shout a speaker down--which is what happened last April when Dr.Falwell was hissed and heckled at Harvard.So I am doubly grateful for your courtesy here this evening.That was not Harvard’s finest hour, but I am happy to say that the loudest applause from the Harvard audience came in defense of Dr.Falwell’s right to speak.In short, I hope for an America where neither ”fundamentalist“ nor ”humanist" will be a dirty word, but a fair description of the different ways in which people of good will look at life and into their own souls.I hope for an America where no president, no public official, no individual will ever be deemed a greater or lesser American because of religious doubt--or religious belief.I hope for an America where the power of faith will always burn brightly, but where no modern Inquisition of any kind will ever light the fires of fear, coercion, or angry division.I hope for an America where we can all contend freely and vigorously, but where we will treasure and guard those standards of civility which alone make this nation safe for both democracy and diversity.Twenty years ago this fall, in New York City, President Kennedy met for the last time with a Protestant assembly.The atmosphere had been transformed since his earlier address during the 1960 campaign to the Houston Ministerial Association.He had spoken there to allay suspicions about his Catholicism, and to answer those who claimed that on the day of his baptism, he was somehow disqualified from becoming President.His speech in Houston and then his election drove that prejudice from the center of our national life.Now, three years later, in November of 1963, he was appearing before the Protestant Council of New York City to reaffirm what he regarded as some fundamental truths.On that occasion, John Kennedy said: “The family of man is not limited to a single race or religion, to a single city, or country...the family of man is nearly 3 billion strong.Most of its members are not white and most of them are not Christian.” And as President Kennedy reflected on that reality, he restated an ideal for which he had lived his life--that “the members of this family should be at peace with one another.”
That ideal shines across all the generations of our history and all the ages of our faith, carrying with it the most ancient dream.For as the Apostle Paul wrote long ago in Romans: “If it be possible, as much as it lieth in you, live peaceable with all men.” I believe it is possible;the choice lies within us;as fellow citizens, let us live peaceable with each other;as fellow human
点击咨询 