The original might be funnier.

*flees to hell*

Seriously, though, that original ad is damn effective. It's going to change some peoples minds.

What? That land mines are bad for kids?

Well duh-huh.

How does that change that they are effective against enemy combatants?

Oh. It doesn't. Got it.

If we had land mines around here, which foreign countries would we have come take care of them for us?

You could make the same ad but for malaria or death from tetanus. There are some things we chose to exclude from our world.

Aliens have a bad record against girls. Couldn't even get Newt, and let Ripley come back and get their momma.

Anyone else notice that the baby blue team (UN) got it's ass kicked?

Or am I reading too much into the ad?

Hey! A link!

(tip of the hat to the gentleman, thank you)

Cheers,
Dave from Chicago who lives in Virginia who writes at Garfield Ridge

The inference, I suppose, is that the United States shouldn't use landmines. Even though we map ours. Even though we're creating technology to give our landmines a finite lifespan, after which they either destroy themselves or deactivate.

Even though they are extremely effective against infiltrators and to secure bases. And heavens knows, we don't have a problem with single-terrorist infiltrators anywhere, do we?

And of course, after we do away with our landmines, everyone else will do away with theirs, right?

Semi related- Did ya'll know that there are NUCLEAR landminds in our arsenals? How cool is THAT? Puts that whole, "The NoKo's are going to run their tanks over the 38th Parallel" shit into perspective doesn't it?

Couple of points.

First, I'll say up front that I believe in the case for American exceptionalism. There are many issues where we can and should say things are OK for us, but not for other countries. I'll even concede that objectively, that is also the case for landmines.

However, the U.S. still needs allies, or at least fewer outright enemies. Let's consider that maybe the landmine issue is one where we can usefully give some ground to preserve the big picture.

1) I can think of many example where infiltrator(s) simply walked through the literal or figurative front door. Landmines wouldn't have helped in the recent chow hall bombing, any of the IEDs, our aircraft losses, the USS Cole or 9/11.

2) There are other ways to secure perimeters.

3) As pointed out, there are other technologies on the way to supplant landmines.

4) Ads like this, and the campaign behind it, are viscerally effective for many, probably the majority. You can go on and on about the cold, rational case for the U.S. needing landmines, but you are going to pay an increasing political cost.

Now, before someone jumps on me and says how they would rather pay any political cost than let one soldier die, let me say:

1) Bullshit - if you think that the aid and comfort given to the insurgents by anti-Americanism doesn't have a real impact in terms of soldiers dying, you are blind. One must think strategically as well as tactically, and giving ground on landmines may be strategically wise.
2) By virtue of my profession, I could easily be behind a military defensive perimeter some day. This issues has more real-world impact on me than on most people who will read this post (all three of them).

Anyway. I recommend a public acknowledgement of the moral case against landmines (or, if you prefer, the “moral case”), followed by a slow transition period timed to coincide with new technologies and strategies.

I thought the first was fairly amusing myself.

Oh yes. Ban landmines. While we're at it, let's blunt our swords in the name of humanity. That'll do wonders. Of course, mines will still be used, just not by the people who at least try to be responsible in their use.

I didn't bother seeing the original spot, since it most likely was more emotional hyperbole designed more to create a hysteric rather than a rational reaction. Like the commercials where they show some eight-year-old finding a gun (followed by off-screen gunshot, of course) to promote restrictions on firearms.

The original is dishonest propaganda. The parody is funny because the original is such a distortion of reality that the parody isn't much further from the truth.

If the original weren't dishonest, yes it would be sick to laugh at a parody of it. But given that it is, it's sick not to.