Suffer the little Smurfs. Via WorldChanging.
This work, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License. Terms and conditions beyond the scope of this license may be available at airminded.org.
Not quite sure of the message there. I mean, I'm all in favour of bombing the whatsits out of the Smurfs, and if that's what UNICEF wants to do, good luck to them – I'll even make a donation. But surely it's a bit far removed from their charter?
Mission creep, maybe? UNICEF's mandate is to protect children's rights. Nothing in that requires that they have a strike force of bombers standing by to rain death and destruction on those little blue weirdos, but it could be argued that it's a logical extension of UNICEF's educational activities, or perhaps of their work in the area of protecting the mental health of children. But what's next? Smurfs are one thing, but where does it all end? That's the question that concerned citizens should be asking.
It was made very clear to the Smurfs that they were either with us or against us. Who knows what they were concealing under those strange white hats. The best intelligence sources we had at the time indicated that they had the ability to attack children with high-pitched Euro-pop within 45 minutes. It's time to leave that controversy behind, and concentrate on the creation of a viable smurfocracy. And besides, God told us to do it.
Oh, well, that changes everything! Carry on then.
If they were serious about destroying those smurfs they'd go nuclear – a 200Kt airburst should do nicely. Either that or drop in a para battalion after the strike with AC-130 support.
If there's one thing the video shows, it's that strategic bombing below the nuclear level remains ineffective in historic terms.
I think that we'll have to wait until the report of the SBS (Smurf Bombing Survey) is in before we can draw any firm conclusions about that, Alex.