Smurfs and War
This past week, UNICEF had a commercial with Smurfs being bombed out of existence by warplanes and tanks, ostensibly to show children that "war kills" in an effort to raise awareness about the plight of child soldiers in Africa. Alot of folks in Europe are A) pissed off with the commercial ("how dare you use the Smurfs like that! I mean, they're the SMURFS!!!") B) wondering why the hell it was necessary, since it's so clearly over the top propaganda C) kids really shouldn't watch it. (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/10/08/1128563036327.html?from=top5)
There's only one really glaring problem. It has clearly nothing to do with Africa.
Firstly, in the African wars, there's a paucity of any heavy weaponry. Not many tanks, not many warplanes. Most of the African wars have been fought on a local scale, with infantry and mobile light units (pickup truck with a machine gun attached to it, more often than not). They're local for two reasons- more often than not, they're not state on state violence, but rather, tribe against tribe. That limits their range. Also, they just don't have the money for heavy equipment. It's much easier to buy older machines and simple handheld weapons. The economies in Africa are generally unable to afford the upkeep of tanks, planes, and warships (with exceptions, but the exceptions are well, largely democratic and out of the fighting). So, it's limited to a local range by the sheer lack of any truly significant modern technology, or economical infrastructure. It's largely a 18th and early 19th century style of warfare (along with the 10th century "off with their heads" police state mentality) being done with mid to late 20th century weapons.
Plus, the smurfs are blue. They're not, fuchia, mauve, opal, vanilla cream, or anything else. They're........blue. I'll get to this in a second, but keep in mind that they are BLUE. And not any other color.
Now that I've established that there is little to do with the commercial and Africa, what is the commercial about? I'm tempted to say "why do you even bother asking- you know the answer!" but I won't.
Ok, I lied. I will ask that. The answer really IS easy.
What country out there has modern weapons of warfare- tanks and planes and all that- and is a common enemy of the leftists who hate warfare (except when it's in their interests, or they can forget it is happening!) and routinely depict it's soldiers as baby killers who eat baby seals for breakfast and like putting underwear on people's heads as a form of torture?
The United States of America. They use a commercial ostensibly for raising awareness for the children stuck in the African wars, and make it a not-so-subtle attack on the American military. I mean war kills, right? And soldiers only target civilians, right? And they're dastardly eeeeeeeeevil minions of the Dark Lord himself, right? And they never, ever, ever, ever, ever do anything for the good of the world, right? And the are RED staters who want to ethnically cleanse BLUE staters, right? (I told you I would get back to the blue issue!)
Someone needs to tell UNICEF to go fuck themselves. Preferably, an Iraqi or Afghani should do that. And maybe, just maybe one of these days, UNICEF will need the US military's help. And we'll remember their Smurf snuff film.
There's only one really glaring problem. It has clearly nothing to do with Africa.
Firstly, in the African wars, there's a paucity of any heavy weaponry. Not many tanks, not many warplanes. Most of the African wars have been fought on a local scale, with infantry and mobile light units (pickup truck with a machine gun attached to it, more often than not). They're local for two reasons- more often than not, they're not state on state violence, but rather, tribe against tribe. That limits their range. Also, they just don't have the money for heavy equipment. It's much easier to buy older machines and simple handheld weapons. The economies in Africa are generally unable to afford the upkeep of tanks, planes, and warships (with exceptions, but the exceptions are well, largely democratic and out of the fighting). So, it's limited to a local range by the sheer lack of any truly significant modern technology, or economical infrastructure. It's largely a 18th and early 19th century style of warfare (along with the 10th century "off with their heads" police state mentality) being done with mid to late 20th century weapons.
Plus, the smurfs are blue. They're not, fuchia, mauve, opal, vanilla cream, or anything else. They're........blue. I'll get to this in a second, but keep in mind that they are BLUE. And not any other color.
Now that I've established that there is little to do with the commercial and Africa, what is the commercial about? I'm tempted to say "why do you even bother asking- you know the answer!" but I won't.
Ok, I lied. I will ask that. The answer really IS easy.
What country out there has modern weapons of warfare- tanks and planes and all that- and is a common enemy of the leftists who hate warfare (except when it's in their interests, or they can forget it is happening!) and routinely depict it's soldiers as baby killers who eat baby seals for breakfast and like putting underwear on people's heads as a form of torture?
The United States of America. They use a commercial ostensibly for raising awareness for the children stuck in the African wars, and make it a not-so-subtle attack on the American military. I mean war kills, right? And soldiers only target civilians, right? And they're dastardly eeeeeeeeevil minions of the Dark Lord himself, right? And they never, ever, ever, ever, ever do anything for the good of the world, right? And the are RED staters who want to ethnically cleanse BLUE staters, right? (I told you I would get back to the blue issue!)
Someone needs to tell UNICEF to go fuck themselves. Preferably, an Iraqi or Afghani should do that. And maybe, just maybe one of these days, UNICEF will need the US military's help. And we'll remember their Smurf snuff film.
posted by Fafhrd1 | 6:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home