Imagine.....

Okay, so it's the 25th Anniversary of John Lennon's death.
Musically I love what John, George Paul and Ringo created, and I even love the music John created after the break up. Paul, too for that matter.

But John insisted on becoming a politico, a voice, and a outspoken public figure instead of staying purely a musician, and that opens him up for fair criticism in regards to his thought process and beliefs.

Now, I know there are many of you (particularly on the left) that feel ANY criticism of an individual with a pained or tragic story in their lives

::::::cough::::cindysheehan:::::cough::::::

is somehow callous, cold, heartless, and inhumanly brutal. In short, you feel that any liberal who has experienced tragedy - for instance the death of an estranged child with whom a "mother" has had little or no contact,

::::::cough::::cindysheehan:::::cough::::::

or a loving, caring musical peacenik who was brutally and coldly gunned down such as Mr. Lennon... ANY such liberal is above reproach or even criticism.

Well, TOUGH!

You who defend the freedom of speech so wholeheartedly can hear some speech you don't enjoy.... DEAL with it! I have the 1st amendment same as you!

JOHN LENNON was the PRIME example of what's wrong with every Cindy Sheehan loving, communist, socialist, American hating cowardly leftie out there! Had he not been a pacifist, he'd be alive today!
Turning his other cheek to Mark David Chapman didn't solve anything for John Lennon. It cut short a promising life, it cut short the time two young boys would have with their father, and ended a still productive musical career. What good was turning the other cheek?
I am not saying one should NEVER turn the other cheek... but in a matter of life and death... turning the other cheek or being a pacifist will only end up getting you killed! Pacifism is nice on paper. And if there weren't any Hitlers, Saddams, Idi Amins, Stalins or Chapmans out there, it would probably work outside of theory as well. In the meantime, the Lennons and appeasement happy Bubba Clintons out there will only get themselves or others (respectively) killed! It was the 8 years of Bubba's turning the other national cheek that allowed Al Queda to grow to massive proportions, advance technologically, and train (for 60+ months on American soil) for the 9-11 Attacks. And it was John Lennon's turning the other cheek that left Sean and Julian without a Dad and left the world without his angelic chord progressions.

In short, one might argue that John Lennon got what he deserved, no less than some Aryan Nation freektoid marching up Adam Clayton Jr. Blvd. yelling "All niggers should be enslaved again!" He practiced pacifism, and received EXACTLY what pacifism ALWAYS gives - death and subjugation.

Somebody marching through Harlem yelling vulgar racist epithets deserves what he gets, and ANYONE too naive, ignorant, or stupid to realize that pacifism HAS NEVER... DOESN'T... and NEVER WILL protect ANYONE from ANYTHING gets what he deserves.

And guess what? If you boomers in your cowardly peacenik ways get us to pull out of Iraq before the job is done... it will be YOU pacifist idiots who will have allowed Al Queda, the Islamic Jihad, and every other terrorist group to fill the void in Iraq and build a TRUE Al Queda (base of operations) in Baghdad.
And when they come after us again, with a home base in Iraq, and a willing neighbor in Iran, and proceed to rain horrors across this nation the like of which we've never before seen...

Like John Lennon crumpling under a hail of bullets incredulously saying "I've been shot".... so will the United States crumple as you yellow bellies ask "what happened?"

No Geneva Convention for YOU!

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

The link is to the UN's own commission on human rights, detailing the Geneva Convention. I would like to draw your attention to Article 4:

Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions: (emphasis provided by me)
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

Now, if an enemy combatant does NOT comply with ALL 4 of the criteria, then that individual is NOT protected under the Geneva Convention!
Period!
End of discussion!
Not satisfied? Okay, let's look at Al Queda and the various insurgent groups in Iraq:
Point one ...There is no recognizable chain of command
Point two .... They wear no uniforms of any kind, much less uniforms "recognizable at a distance"
Point three... IED's, or Improvised Explosive Devices - home made landmines and roadside bombs concealed in discarded tires, vegetation, empty boxes and other common trash intended to do bodily harm and death to coalition forces - these are the very kinds of weapons the Geneva Convention was made to PROHIBIT!
Point four.... Beheading civilians alive and the televising of those decapitations goes against every law and custom of war!
Paragraph 3 simply states that in order to be protected by the Geneva Convention, you must actually be a signed PARTY to the Convention (which Al Queda and the insurgent factions are not) So, not only do they not fulfill ALL the listed criteria, they don't even fulfill ONE!

Now let me say something that will truly cook your noodle....

WE HAVE A MORAL OBLIGATION TO TORTURE DETAINEES IN GITMO!

Yes, you read that right! I maybe painting the statement to the extreme side of the concept, but the underlying fact is true.

The Geneva Convention is like any other contract or treaty, it has obligations and incentives that pertain to the signatory parties and to no one else. If you wish to reap the benefits, you sign the document and abide by the criteria, otherwise... TOUGH SHIT!

Recently, the "BIG 3" car companies gave their "employee discount" to anyone and everyone who bought one of their vehicles. At that point, it made the employee discount meaningless... the employees were paying the same for a car everyone was paying.
In the same manner, if any and every enemy combatant is treated in a Geneva Convention style, then what's the POINT of having a Geneva Convention? There will be no incentives for wearing uniforms, no incentives for not beheading innocent civilians, no incentives for conducting a war in a humane and acceptable manner... after all, if the US pampers everyone, there is no incentive to sign or abide by the Geneva Convention Accords.
We therefore, in order to uphold and STRENGTHEN the Geneva Accords, must treat non-signatories and those in non-compliance as harshly as we can stomach! If they want to be treated with respect, honor, and in accordance to the accords, then by God, they can sign them and live by them first... only THEN will they get the protections they afford!