kumpulan naskah pidato bahasa inggris

Wedding Planning: Ceremony Speech Wedding Speeches Wedding speech is an important part of any ceremony. Like any speech, it sums up the relationships between people, expresses wishes of happiness to the newly married, and reminds of some remarkable life events. There are several types of traditional wedding speeches: Father of the Bride's speech, Groom's speech, Best Man speech, Bride's speech, Maid of Honor speech. Certainly, these speeches are considered usual only for the Western world weddings, because different cultures provide for the various wedding ceremonies. However, we will concentrate on the traditional western weddings. Father of the bride's speech is traditionally considered to be the introducing speech which opens the party. It is thus the most important one, because it gives tone to the whole evening. Father can create the atmosphere of stateliness, emotional warmth and festive mood with his speech. Eye contact with each guest is essential because in such way each guest will feel the attention of the master of the evening. In his speech the father of the bride thanks the guests for coming and speaks about the couple. Particularly, as a rule, it is a tradition that fathers remember some funny or touching events from their daughter's childhood. And here is the challenge: these memories can be unpleasant for the daughter (bride) and even for groom. Therefore, it is obligatory for a father to have the sense of tact. Otherwise, certain controversies between "generations" can arise later. This is especially relevant if the bride is some great and honored professional, while for her father she remains just a little girl; thus his memories become inappropriate in front of her friends and colleagues. Next comes the Groom's speech, which is predominantly the thanks to all: to guests for their presence and cordial feelings, to the father of the bride for his daughter and favor, to people who helped managing the wedding ceremony, to his wife for her love and excellent choice. At last, the groom raises his glass to bridesmaids - and this is a signal to the best man's speech. The best man's speech is the speech of the old faithful friend, who knows the groom well, and is expected to become the friend of the young family. The best man characterizes the groom, and may provide unexpected facts from the groom's biography; however, it would be better to familiarize the groom with the content of the speech so that no unpleasant surprises are possible. In contrast to the father of the bride's speech, the best man's speech is expected to be more humorous and funny. The best man's speech may be somewhat piquant, but at the same time he should avoid vulgarity. The speech of the maid of honor is similar to the best man's speech, especially if we look at the role these people play in the lives of the newlywed: in the majority of cases they are the best friends to the newly married. Honor maid's speech is not obligatory at the wedding. The bride's speech is considered to be relatively new element of the wedding ceremony, and here one can see the vague allusion to the feminist mood. Nevertheless, there is no even a hint on some bellicosity, because brides use all their imagination and creativity to have the best speech ever spoken. Brides are not so limited with traditional views as for the content of the speech, and therefore, their task is more interesting, but more difficult at the same time. Besides, it can be suggested that bride and groom stand up and toast together, either having two separate but associated speeches, or reducing them to the form of the dialogue. This will vivify the evening and make it more extraordinary. Anthony Eden: The Suez Crisis Author: Anthony Eden Year: 1956 Location: London, Great Britain Occasion: Address to the House of Commons concerning the Suez Crisis Critical Commentary: This speech was delivered by Anthony Eden, then British Prime Minister to the House of Commons on the issue of the Suez Canal in Egypt. The controversy was in the fact that Egyptian prime Minister Nasser blocked the Suez canal and announced the nationalization of the Suez Canal Company. British forces were sent to Egypt to prevent possible financial and commercial losses of Great Britain from the Nasser’s actions. This intervention was condemned internationally. Eden resigned his office in a year. Text of the Speech In view of my right hon. Friend’s announcement that there will be a further debate tomorrow, I will, if I may, confine myself today to giving certain facts about the situation which are available to us and to meeting certain of the criticisms which may be in the minds of the House. I will begin by saying this about the United Nations session. Yesterday morning, the United States representative tabled at U.N.O. (United nations Organisation) a resolution which was, in effect, a condemnation of Israel as the aggressor in the events of the last few days. We felt that we could not associate ourselves with this and we said so through diplomatic channels both in London and in New York. Her Majesty’s Government did not feel, and do not feel, that it is possible to pronounce in this way against one of the parties in the dispute for the action which they have taken, regardless of the cumulative effects that went before. Throughout recent months, and, in particular, since the seizure of the Canal, the Egyptian Government have kept up a violent campaign against Israel, against this country and against the West. The Egyptian Government have made clear over and over again, with increased emphasis since the seizure of the Canal, their intention to destroy Israel, just as they have made it plain that they would drive the Western Powers out of the Middle East. (An HON. MEMBER: “What has happened?”) That is what has been happening and that is the background to understand what is happening. It is from these Egyptian policies that much of the present crisis has sprung, and to ignore them is to shun reality. In these circumstances, is there any Member of this House who can consider Egypt as an innocent country whom it is right to exonerate at the Security Council by condemning Israel as an aggressor? Moreover, the Security Council resolution simply called upon the Israeli Government to withdraw within their frontiers. That seemed, and seems, to us in all the circumstances that have preceded these immediate events, to be a harsh demand if it is to stand alone. It certainly could not be said to meet in any way the guarantees for Israel’s security which were asked for by several hon. Members in the course of yesterday’s debate. As to our own request, to both sides, to cease fire and to withdraw, Israel accepted that request last night and declared her willingness to take practical steps to carry it out. The Egyptian Government rejected it. As to the military situation on the ground, I must give the House what information is at our disposal. The Press this morning, the House will have seen, reports that one column of Israeli troops yesterday morning reached El Quseima, which is one of the biggest Egyptian bases in North Sinai, in an outflanking movement from Nakhl. To the best of our knowledge, this is true. I can confirm also what my right hon. and learned Friend said last night in reply to the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) that, so far as our information goes, Israeli troops are continuing to advance towards the Canal. The Press also reports that a column is now well along the highway built by Lord Allenby’s forces in the First World War. This highway leads through the desert to Ismailia. Other columns are reported to be nearer the Canal. Some troops may already be on it. The latest report is that they are approaching the Canal, and there are a number of details on the tape since, which hon. Members will have seen, within the last hour. A number of prisoners have been captured, I understand. In the light of all these facts, can anyone say that we and the French Government should have waited – (shouts of “Yes.”) – for a satisfactory resolution by the Security Council authorising definite action to stop the fighting? I must remind the House that we have recently been to the United Nations and we went with proposals for the future of the Canal, approved by 18 Powers representing more than 90 per cent. of the traffic that uses the Canal. Admittedly, we received strong support for our proposals, but they were vetoed by the Soviet Government. Can we be expected to await the development of similar procedures in the situation of much greater urgency that confronts us now in and about the Canal? The action we had to take was bound to be rapid. I regret it had to be so, but it was inescapable. We have no desire whatever, nor have the French Government, that the military action that we shall have to take should be more than temporary in its duration, but it is our intention that our action to protect the Canal and separate the combatants should result in a settlement which will prevent such a situation arising in the future. If we can do that we shall have performed a service not only to this country, but to the users of the Canal. It is really not tolerable that the greatest sea highway in the world, one on which our Western life so largely depends, should be subject to the dangers of an explosive situation in the Middle East which, it must be admitted, has been largely created by the Egyptian Government along familiar lines. I would remind the House that we have witnessed, all of us, the growth of a specific Egyptian threat to the peace of the Middle East. Everybody knows that to be true. In the actions we have now taken we are not concerned to stop Egypt, but to stop war. None the less, it is a fact that there is no Middle Eastern problem at present which could not have been settled or bettered but for the hostile and irresponsible policies of Egypt in recent years, and there is no hope of a general settlement of the many outstanding problems in that area so long as Egyptian propaganda and policy continues its present line of violence. What would the future of the Middle East have been if, while denouncing Israel, we had done nothing to check these Egyptian actions? The only result would be warfare spreading through the whole area and a great increase in the strength and influence of a dictator’s power. In these circumstances, to have taken no action would have been to betray not our interests alone but those of the free world and, above all, of the Middle East itself. To have taken ineffective action would have been a greater betrayal than to have taken no action at all. We have taken the only action which we could clearly see would be effective in holding the belligerents apart and which would give us some chance to re-establish the peace of the area. In entering the Suez Canal area we are only protecting a vital international waterway. We are also holding – and this is a point I would ask the House to bear in mind – between the combatants the only possible line of division which is practicable for us, because even if it had been fair it would not have been possible to have attempted to establish ourselves upon the armistice line itself. It is an irregular line, with no facilities and no possibility of any limited forces doing anything effective to control it, and, of course, would have been no assistance at all in respect of shipping in the Canal. Now I wish to say something about our relations with the United States in the matter. The decisions which we and the French Government took were, as I said yesterday, taken on our own account and on our own responsibility. The Government remain convinced that we could have done no other and discharge our national duty. Now, it is, of course, an obvious truth that safety of transit through the Canal, though clearly of concern to the United States, is for them not a matter of survival as it is to us and, indeed, to all Europe and many other lands. Indeed, Mr. Dulles himself made this clear on 28th August, when he said the United States’ economy is not dependent upon the Canal. Of course that is true. We must all accept it, and we should not complain about it, but it is equally true that throughout all these months this fact has inevitably influenced the attitude of the United States to these problems, as compared to that of ourselves and France. If anyone says that on that account we should have held up action until agreement could be reached with the United States as to what to do I can only say that this would have been to ignore what everyone here and in the United States knows to have been different approaches to some of these vital Middle Eastern questions. They know it. We know it. Of course, we deplore it, but I do not think that it can carry with it this corollary, that we must in all circumstances secure agreement from our American ally before we can act ourselves in what we know to be our own vital interests. Free Sample Informative Speech: Gas Transit The first gas pipeline Dashava-Striy was built back in 1924. It was extended to Kyiv in 1948, and six years later - to Moscow. Rapid development of the gas transportation system started in 1960s-1970s with start of the Russian and Ukrainian gas supply to the countries of Central and Western Europe in 1967. The reasonableness of this step was essentially doubted in Europe, particularly by the NATO and some European countries. The Times in 1967 mentioned the project suggested the supply of natural gas by USSR to Italy, France, Austria and even to the Western Germany. Russia had an excess of gas resources in Siberia and wanted it to be supplied to Europe through Ukrainian gas transportation system. Despite the serious doubts regarding the growing dependence on the natural resources from the USSR, the agreement was reached and Russian and Ukrainian gas flowed to Europe. It seems that nowadays it is high time for Europe to recall its past anxiety: being independent on gas supply from "Soviet countries" - Russia and Ukraine becomes critical for economy of the European Union. There is no doubt, that when Russia and Ukraine were the parts of the same structure - Soviet Union, there were no essential confrontation between them as the supplier and the intermediary. The situation changed in 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed and two countries became independent. During 14 years (till 2005), Ukraine benefited from subsidized rates for Russian natural gas. It should be mentioned that it was not until 2005 that serious gas conflict arose - and exactly before this, in 2004, the Orange revolution broke out, which ended up with the first truly pro-Western government in Ukraine. That is, Russia started to lose its boundless influence. Moreover, Ukrainian President, mr. Yushchenko made certain steps to join the NATO, which was considered as direct threat to the Russian strategic interests. Since then, each New Year celebration passes under the sign of gas conflict between Russia and Ukraine. However, we should not forget about the economic justification of the problem. Crisis made countries save money, and each party tries to press out as much dollars as it is possible. If we consider the issue through the prism of economy, we'll see that Ukraine tries to reduce the price for gas requested by Russia. Switching to market terms, sticking to current Russian demands will mean more than doubling of gas price for Ukraine: $418-$450 per 1000 cubic meters (tcm) in contrast to 2008 price of $179. In response to these terms, Ukraine stated that in this case it will be compelled to increase tariffs for gas transit, according to the market terms as well. For reference, Europe is expected to pay $250-300/tcm this year, according to Russian Gazprom. The conflict has not been settled until now. Ukraine refutes accusations of siphoning off the Russian gas, and the monitors of the EU are checking gas flow through the Ukrainian territory to confirm or refute the case of siphoning off the gas. Gas transit is halted, and again, it is hard to define the party which is to be blamed for this. Gas transit issues are regulated by the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) (1998), which specifies uninterrupted transit as one of its major provisions. At the same time, this is not the pro-globalization agreement, as far as it brings into the foreground the sovereignty of a nation concerning its energy sector and other issues. This is provided in the Article 18 of the ECT. Therefore, Ukraine is only defending its interests. However, the Treaty provisions can be interpreted differently: thus, Article 7(5) of the ECT claims that member countries are obliged to "secure established flows of Energy Materials and Products to, from or between the Areas of other contracting Parties" (Energy Charter, 2009). In case of interruption, member states should "…expeditiously restore the normal operation of such Transit" (Energy Charter, 2009), as it is stated in Article 16 of the ECT. It was agreed that gas flow will be restored on 13th Jan, 2009, but this plan failed. The President of Ukraine, Viktor Yushchenko, announced that technical condition of the GTS is impaired, and this hampers the proper control over the gas flow through the pipelines. Despite the different views on the problem, one thing is obvious: this conflict is rather political, than economic. The reputation of both countries as reliable partners is undermined. Ukraine attempts to reduce the prices for gas, while Russia exerts pressure and demonstrates its power. While the previous gas conflicts between Russia and Ukraine (2005-2007) seemed to raise sympathy of the official Europe to Ukraine as a victim, Europe is neutral today. Sample Retirement/Farewell Speech Welcome, everyone, to this very special occasion. And a bitter-sweet occasion it is to us. It's very sad to be saying goodbye to Mrs. Jane Smith who is closing twenty years of military service. In 1995, she was one of 1, 200 American women deployed to Haiti for peacekeeping duties. She successfully fulfilled her mission. For twenty years, she has had the privilege of serving our great nation with duty, honor, courage, commitment, vision, tenacity, and spirit that all of us, her male and female colleagues, value so much. She has served our country with distinction. She pursued the career and lifestyle of the military, making them the main meaning in her life. As you know, the official history of American women in the military began over a century ago. In the late 1980s, when Jane began her military career, the percentage of women in the military was quite small, especially in the navy. In many ways, women who wanted to be in the Navy were discriminated. They were not considered to be strong enough to serve equally with men. This view has changed since then. I am proud to say that two million women have served our country. Of the 540, 000 Americans who served in the Desert Storm operation, nearly 41, 000 percent were women. It was the largest wartime deployment of American military women in history. Women in the military have great achievements. Nobody doubts that they are playing an important role in peacekeeping missions. Today, women make up 15 percent of enlisted each year. When Jane began her military career, very few women were prepared to stubbornly move from our profession's periphery towards its heart. It was very hard, for we, men, dominated in the military and were not ready for any female competition. We thought that girls in the military would give up, unable to be qualified as our equals. But the more they trained and the more they buried their heads over textbooks, the more admirable they became to us. They taught us, with all persuasion and overwhelming willingness to serve our country, to pursue long-term goals, and, despite hardships and obstacles, realize them. When we were together in the Naval School, we failed to see competitors in women in the military. Now, due to such women as Jane, our predominantly male service has been changed. Jane has succeeded in doing her military duty, and she was several times awarded for her excellent military service. It is almost incredible to believe that she is Mom to these two boys, her sons, who want to follow in their Mom's footsteps and continue the family tradition in the military. Sleepless nights, far away from her sons, never did Jane complain, never did she show how hard it was to be at the head of a single household and in the military. More than that, she always helped us, men, to overcome separation from our families, with her own example. At the rare moments off our duty, she found warm words that strengthened us. She became our friend with whom we were able to share happiness and troubles. She has become a valuable asset to our military team, qualified, reliable, trustful, understanding, and brave. We will be missing you, Jane, a lot. We will be missing your sense of humor, your ability not to lose your head in a difficult situation, your friendliness, your open-hearted personality, your good nature. For you, this moment is crucial: you have to alter many things, which is not easy, in order to get adjusted to your new life on land. From me to you, dear Jane, thank you for inviting me to speak and take this memorable opportunity to wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors. You can explore more horizons, here, on land. I am sure you will find new opportunities and pleasures in your civil life. Happy retirement! Sample Charity Speech Distinguished guests! Ladies and gentlemen! It is my honor to be invited as a speaker in a charity event at this concert hall. It is a great pleasure for me to be here today. I would like to seize the opportunity to congratulate us on launching this outstanding fundraising campaign in which many urban organizations are involved. Our donations in this month have amounted to 50, 000 dollars - the sum that will be transferred to a maternity house in the south of Somalia. On the boards you can see the faces of young mothers in Somalia who need our help. The money will be donated for modern medical equipment. Our goal is to decrease the number of infant deaths in the Somalia town under our sponsorship. To achieve this noble goal, we have organized a charity ball and a charity fair. I am honored to thank all sponsors, organizations and private persons, who care for people in need in the heart of the African continent. We all know that Somalia is in a desperate economic condition, many of its natural resources exhausted and different political groups still tearing the country into separate parts due to their endless conflicts. But common people, victimized by the regime, have a right to live, to give birth to babies, and to enjoy families with many kids. The women of Somalia, who suffer from malnutrition and hard conditions of life, are brave to have kids. We are proud of their bravery and their will to experience all pleasures of motherhood. However, the conditions are grave. Poor medical care, if any, a high rate of infant deaths - one can hardly imagine that all this may be possible in the first decade of the 21st century. We are living in the world that needs great changes. But, as President Obama said, we are responsible for the future of the world as well. Our charity organization has been constantly working on fundraising, much of which is transferred as humanitarian aid. Last month we enjoyed our young models in stylish dresses of their own design - they collected a good sum of money and were so happy to give a helping hand to our African friends. Today, we are often constrained to our own domestic affairs. We think of our own future, with hopes at the time of recession. But when we are in trouble, citizens of a prosperous country people in developing countries suffer from the crisis much, much more. They have to fight for their everyday needs. But they have few resources to struggle against their extreme poverty. The most unprotected circles of African society are kids. Last year we visited a maternity house in Somalia. It frightened us to see how mother and kids suffer. In that hot climate it is very important to fight against infectious diseases. Water supplies are limited, and drinking water is of notorious low quality. We have developed a program "Mom and kid" that will gradually change the situation at least one maternity house for the better. You may be informed on this program on our website. Life is so beautiful. God presents us with this gift of life not to suffer from what we can have as our right. Health care protection is a hot issue in developing countries. On paper, kids are protected and have primary care. In reality, the situation is quite, quite different. Our mutual efforts, our support - all this African moms need most of all. Together, we will fulfill our duty of cherishing every human life. In closing, I wish to thank all of you, our sponsors and donors, for your donations. Let's go on building the bonds of friendship and goodness through cooperation and mutual respect. Thank you all for being with us, joining us, and supporting our beginnings. Thank you all!