Issue167 第1篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！

ctxUID: 199330

Issue167  第1篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：45分13秒     587 words
从2005年2月9日9时13分到2005年2月9日9时45分
------题目------
It is impossible for an effective political leader to tell the truth all the time. Complete honesty is not a useful virtue for a politician.
------正文------
Is telling the truth all the time possible for an effective political leader? Or is it true as the speaker asserts that honesty is not a useful virtue for a politician? From my point of view, it is necessary and understandable for a politician not always to tell the truth for the sake of the public or of the state, while it is not permitted that a politician lies for his or her own and private interest.

To begin with, a political leader is able, and sometimes is necessary, not to always tell the truth. At the end of last century, when the Pentagon's computer system meets certain difficulty about Y2K, namely the problem of year 2000, the message was kept as unknown to public until the problem was solved. When an epidemic occurs in certain place, the government always tells its people that all the situation is under control and there is no need for afraid and nerviness to prevent the possible chaos of the public, which might bring more obstacle to fight against the disease. By doing such things, the political leader, or the government, are for the sake of the whole public, society and the nation. And in most cases like that, not to tell the truth to public at the very beginning is extremely important. If the problem about the Pentagon's computer system had been known to all before its completely solution, the public would have experienced a large escape for the fear of possible attacks out of control by weapons out of control, or some terrorists might have taken this chance to do harm to American people.

In addition, when something about the secret of a state is concerned, a political is committed to keep the secret a secret, which requires him or her not to tell the truth, at least at that time. For example, the US leader did not tell the world that the US military force had no more atomic bonds after the only two such bonds had been used to attack the two cities in Japan, thus making Japan in deep fear of American nuclear weapons and helping to the end of the World War II. Another military action also serves as an excellent example. After the US and British army decided to land on the western shore of Europe, they successfully make the Hitler and the German generals to conclude wrong conclusion about the landing area by cheating. If the politicians had told the truth at that time, we could hardly imagine how long will the terrible war would have continued.

However, the power of a political leader to cover the truth cannot be extended to what involves his or her private interest. This is the very rule for a politician to obey; otherwise the politician would fail in public sooner or later, especially democratic countries. The scandal of Water Gate, and former president Clitons’ affair with an intern of the White House, gives us good instances. People will not give the right to political leader to cover the truth for his or her own sake, or such right is not permitted to be abused.

In sum, I strongly agree that a political leader can and sometimes should keep something secret to public for the sake of the larger society, though the right cannot be used to benefit his or her private goals. In democratic countries, all of the powers are authorized by people, and those powers can only be used for public interests, not private ones.

thiohuUID: 193100

Is telling the truth all the time possible for an effective political leader? Or is it true as the speaker asserts that honesty is not a useful virtue for a politician? From my point of view, it is necessary and understandable for a politician not always to tell the truth for the sake of the public or of the state, while it is not permitted that a politician lies for[to persue] his or her own and private interest.

To begin with, a political leader is able, and sometimes is necessary, not to always tell the truth. [这里太唐突了点吧，最好用提示此表示你在开始举例了]At the end of last century, when the Pentagon's computer system meets[came across] certain difficulty about Y2K, namely the problem of year 2000, the message was[had been] kept as[as去掉] unknown to [the public]public until the problem was solved. [再用个连接词表示你在距第二个例子了]When an epidemic occurs in certain place, the government always tells its people that all the situation is under control and there is no need for[好像不通] afraid and nerviness to prevent the[the应该不用把] possible chaos of the public, which might bring more obstacle to fight against the disease.[好的，句型够复杂，我喜欢] By doing such things, the political leader, or the government, are for the sake of the whole public, society and the nation[这句话应该修改，你应当指出在这些例子证明了你的论点，即doing such things, which are for the sake of the whole public, society and the nation 是necessary and understandable for the political leader and goverment的] And in most cases like that, not to tell the truth to public at the very beginning is extremely important. [好像又画蛇添足的味道，上句都给出分论点的结论了，再if就不太好了]If the problem about the Pentagon's computer system had been known to all before its completely solution, the public would have experienced a large escape for the fear of possible attacks out of control by weapons out of control, or some terrorists might have taken this chance to do harm to American people.

In addition, when something[things] about the secret of a state is[are] concerned, a political is committed to keep the secret a secret, which requires him or her not to tell the truth, at least at that time. For example, the US leader did not tell the world that the US military force had no more atomic bonds after the only two such bonds had been used to attack the two cities in Japan, thus making Japan in deep fear of American nuclear weapons and helping to the end of the World War II. Another military action also serves as an excellent example. After the US and British army decided to land on the western shore of Europe, they successfully make the Hitler and the German generals to conclude wrong conclusion about the landing area by cheating. If the politicians had told the truth at that time, we could hardly imagine how long will the terrible war would have continued.

However, the power of a political leader to cover the truth cannot be extended to what involves his or her private interest. This is the very rule for a politician to obey; otherwise the politician would fail in public sooner or later, especially democratic countries. The scandal of Water Gate, and former president Clitons’ affair with an intern of the White House, gives us good instances. People will not give the right to political leader to cover the truth for his or her own sake, or such right is not permitted to be abused.

In sum, I strongly agree that a political leader can and sometimes should keep something secret to public for the sake of the larger society, though the right cannot be used to benefit his or her private goals. In democratic countries, all of the powers are authorized by people, and those powers can only be used for public interests, not private ones.
文章的前两个body从逻辑上来说不是很严密，我觉得可以这样来组织你的前两个body：第一个body主要从这些例子的情形中不tell truth，后果将很严重，（反面来说）第二个body例子主要从tell truth是财产免受损失 （正面来说）

总的来说文章写得还是很不错的，例子相当丰富。
水平有限，希望能对你有所帮组，另外也算是对拍我者的回拍]

thiohuUID: 193100

修改工具用的不顺，见谅