READ.....THE.......BO OK! - Starship Troopers (1997) Discussion

[–] granitodiaz 12 years ago

hollywood makes the military look awesame, battleship? transformers?

reply

[–] luckiest_strike 12 years ago

neither

reply

[–] master_of_all 12 years ago

The military started the fight.
The bugs wouldnt have cared unless we attacked them first.

You can only vote when you're a citizen, you can only do that by fighting. Crazy military government keeps starting skirmishes across the galaxy (it bitten off more than it can chew in this flick) and the soldiers are gonna keep voting for a military government as they want a government will will keep supplying the best gear.
This flick takes average (if very hollywood teens) and turns them into killing machines with pretty much no morals.

Anyone whos anti war never get to vote, or get any say.
Democracy is dead is this.

A good military flick is Platoon where you see both sides of what war does, the Barns and Elias.

Elvira mistress of the dark is the coolest woman ever.
DCI Gene Hunt (UK) coolest man ever.

reply

[–] Kaptain_Bluddflagg 11 years ago

So I guess that means that you haven't read the book...

I've got me git-finder set to pansy...

reply

[–] xenopharb 11 years ago

You can only vote when you're a citizen, you can only do that by fighting.

No, one has to enlist for government service. There are civilian government jobs similar to the Peace Corps and also administrative duties. The key is that one has to serve.

Crazy military government keeps starting skirmishes across the galaxy (it bitten off more than it can chew in this flick) and the soldiers are gonna keep voting for a military government as they want a government will will keep supplying the best gear.

One does not receive franchise as a full citizen until after completing service. The military cannot vote.

This flick takes average (if very hollywood teens) and turns them into killing machines with pretty much no morals.

Yes, the film makes them all gung-ho. That is not the book.

Anyone whos anti war never get to vote, or get any say. Democracy is dead is this.

One does not have to be in any military branch to serve and gain franchise (voting rights). There are other paths. That stated, the reason one has to serve before gaining franchise is to give citizens first hand knowledge of the consequences of the actions of the government. This is not only to vote but to run for public office as well.

reply

[–] b198426 11 years ago

Incorrect. In their universe you gain citizenship through by serving. The military cannot actually vote until they have satisfied the terms of their service.

I think that's actually a brilliant system.

In our universe, most veterans are very much anti-unnecessary-war after they have experienced combat. Most civilians get pumped up by movies and flag waving and are for any and every war. The veteran stands by all who serve and stand against all who would be served.

So, who would you rather have voting for war? The civilian who thinks it's just like Rambo or the veteran who has first hand experience?

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] b198426 11 years ago

There isn't and intelligence is not what you need in decision making. You need information. Two different things. A soldier is an informed voter. Informed voters are what politicians are most afraid of.

When the government fears the people you have democracy. When the people fear the government, like modern USA, you have tyranny.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] b198426 11 years ago

You don't need proof; It's common sense. If your kid or close love one is serving in the military, you're more likely to pay attention to world events that will lead to endangering them. A person who has something to lose in war is less likely to support war.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] b198426 11 years ago

There are informed voters, but not enough of them. People vote for temporary benefits that sacrifice long term stability. We vote in the person that promises us the most. We are easily divided and corralled into our respective political parties with a few media burst declaring social injustice or moral failings by the other guys.

That's why the rest of the country supports Democrats and republicans while the majority of those who serve change their political affiliation to independent when they leave the service. Ron Paul had the highest support of the military(6x what his opponents had in the last election). 65 percent of Americans think of themselves as either Republican or Democrat while only 43 percent of the military identifies with one of the two major political parties(Annenberg survey). The largest portion of the military party affiliation are the officers who vote largely Republican and the enlisted who are largely Democrat.

So 65% of America favors one of the bloated, destructive parties while 57% of the military favors postitive change. Quite the difference between those that follow the cheese and those that make their own informed decision.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] KrowAnders 10 years ago

So this is like seven or so months later. I'm just reading through the forums here because I thought there might be some information on the new Starship Troopers movie. I came across your post and I had to respond, even thought you may not see it.

Heinlein was far too detailed in his description of the Government for it to be thought up just for dramatic purposes. The person you were talking to really couldn't explain what he was talking about, but I've read the book so many times I can tell you why only service men and women can vote in Heinlein's Starship Troopers world.

Mainly, it has to do with going to war. Soldiers aren't going to vote to go to a war we don't have to participate in. They know what it's like, and won't send people to war lightly. People who serve also don't get full franchise until after their service is completed (as public servants, not just soldiers), so active soldiers won't vote no on every war because they might be too scared to go.

People who serve show that they care for the whole, and not for the individual (themselves). There are tons of things touched upon in the book, and it is often called a "book length recruiting poster for the Marines." I disagree, but I love the ideas within. Not just the Government ideas, but how to serve, follow orders, how to lead, and so on. The book changed my life, honestly.

reply

[–] grendelkhan 10 years ago

I'm a veteran and found that the military was no different from the rest of society. Some kept up on current events and political news, many did not. Plenty could give a toss. Many were so cynical of everything that they didn't bother to vote. Some believed anything in print or on tv, others believed none of it. There were tons of conspiracy theorists. In short, you can find ignorance and enlightenment in the same proportions as the rest of society.

Meanwhile, speaking as a veteran, the idea that military service should somehow give you a greater voice in society goes against the very foundations of the Constitution. Limitations on the military were greatly desired, given recent history with British troops. The military exists to protect the citizenry and have to be a instrument of a society, not the architects of it. Military thinking is narrow, by the nature of their mission. Society needs greater vision. The military has shown time and again that it needs outside oversight to evolve with the times, and to protect the rights of the servicemembers. Integration had to be imposed by executive order, after the military command structure fought it tooth and nail. Civilians must control the military, and that is part and parcel to the oath a servicemember takes, to protect and defend the Constituition; the supreme law of the land. That document sets out a society where the civilian populace, through its elected representatives, dictate the use of military force. The alternative has been proven to lead to rampant militarism and fascism. A militaristic society goes looking for conquest and ultimately brings ruin upon itself.

Fortunately, Ah keep mah feathers numbered for just such an emergency!

reply

[–] tgovostis 11 years ago

IIRC there were 2 majors things about service and commensurate right to vote. Unlike the real world, no matter what your abilities they would find some job for you to do (even a quadriplegic has a wet tongue that can lick stamps) so anyone could serve. Also, the reason you had to serve to vote was that you had to prove you were willing to put the good of the group over your own interests. It wasn't about being better informed, it was about proving you were willing to put society's interests ahead of your own.

reply

[–] Agent_Mothman 12 years ago

I love both the book and the movie for separate reasons, but I would love to see a remake that is more accurate to the novel.

"The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind" ~H.P. Lovecraft

reply

[–] Reel_Big_John 12 years ago

I LOVE the book. It is in my top ten favorite books of all times.

But, I love this movie for what it is, based on the novel...and must say, I love the movie more. It is entertaining, ironic, and clever.

The book is a inspiring read everytime though.

reply

[–] Nikulturny 11 years ago

Of course Hollywood is going to make the military look bad.

As in Top Gun or Saving Private Ryan, I suppose?

Heinlein's book is crude anti-communist propaganda, Verhoeven turned that aspect around and made an anti-fascist satire. Sorry you seem upset he didn't worship at the altar of the military.

reply

[–] Uvtha 11 years ago

Yes. We must have a military to protect ourselves from space insects.

The dangers of being outnumbered in such a scenario are explored in more detail in the the documentary, "Galaga".

reply

[–] tommix42 11 years ago

Yes. We must have a military to protect ourselves from space insects.

The dangers of being outnumbered in such a scenario are explored in more detail in the the documentary, "Galaga".

Who's... laughing... NOW?!? BZZZZZZ (hack hack spurt spurt) HA HA HAAA BZZZZZ HA HA HAAA

reply

[–] NewCliches 11 years ago

Everytime I come to this forum I see a lot of people totally confusing Verhooven's weird ideology with what Heinlein was saying

It is a long while since I read the book, but I believe it includes this quote:

“When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.”

http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/2534973-starship-troopers

Authority is the right to tell other people what to do. If force is the source of authority, then anyone who can force you to hand over your wallet has the right to do so. Muggers, rapists and murderers are justified in those acts simply because they can exert enough force to commit them.

reply

[–] cosmicfish 11 years ago

If force is the source of authority, then anyone who can force you to hand over your wallet has the right to do so.

Not what Heinlein was saying, nor even what he implied. He was saying that ALL political authority is backed by force - military, police, etc. As an example, if you do not follow the law, they ask you to surrender, and when you do not, they put in jail by force. And that is what Heinlein was saying - a politician can make any laws they want, but they are completely unenforceable without, well, force. Heck, that is even where "enforcement" comes from.

His point was that it makes no sense to pretend that this is not the case. When you cast a vote, you are saying "make these things happen, and if necessary, use military and police to make them happen."

So not "might makes right" but "without might, there cannot be right. Unless there has been a pacifist government somewhere I haven't heard of.

Muggers, rapists and murderers are justified in those acts simply because they can exert enough force to commit them.

Not hardly.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-common-movie-arguments-that-are-always-wrong/

reply

[–] NewCliches 11 years ago

By that argument Ghandi and Martin Luther King, to name but two, cannot have possessed any authority. Nor can the Pope, or most Protestent ministers, possess any authority over any Christian in America. Makes you wonder why anyone did anything they said...

reply

[–] cosmicfish 11 years ago

By that argument Ghandi and Martin Luther King, to name but two, cannot have possessed any authority. Nor can the Pope, or most Protestent ministers, possess any authority over any Christian in America.

Actually, no, they didn't have political authority. They certainly had sway and were very convincing, but none of those people have any ability to compel anyone to do anything. If you fail to tithe, can the Pope seize your money? Can your minister call the police and make you come to church? MLK jr. could not desegregate the schools or anything else, he had to convince those with political authority to use the police and National Guard to make it happen.

All of those people have relied on the good graces of a different political authority which in turn provided them with the freedom to act. If said political authority had opposed them, they would have been destroyed, just as many other religious leaders and revolutionaries have been. And it should be noted that back when no such authority existed to defend the Vatican, the Pope had the Papal Zouaves to protect him, and even now has the Swiss Guard.

Every time you see an influential living pacifist, there is a military or police force that will protect them and/or enforce their will.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-common-movie-arguments-that-are-always-wrong/

reply

[–] [email protected] 11 years ago

By that argument Ghandi and Martin Luther King, to name but two, cannot have possessed any authority

What leads you to believe that either of them had any "authority"? Both existed because the government they opposed was run by gentlemen. If they had tried the same approach in Germany in the 'late '30s or early '40ss or the Soviet Union at any time, they'd have just disappeared into the camps and nobody would have ever heard of them.

reply

[–] sexy_dancer 11 years ago

What are you even talking about? Have you ever heard of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, where hundreds of non-violent protesters were massacred? How about the Kent State killings, where the National Guard fired into a crowd of non-violent protesters, killing four and wounding nine? These are just two examples of the actions of representatives of the governments you say were "run by gentlemen."

If I were a man, I would not wish to join your gentlemen's club.

reply

[–] cosmicfish 11 years ago

While I would not use the term "gentleman", I think the point he was trying to make (and definitely the point I was trying to make) is that these governments clearly had the ability to covertly or even overtly eliminate the men in question, and not only refrained from doing so but even provided some modicum of protection.

I would also note that no one, NO ONE, running an organization ever has complete control over the people under them.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-common-movie-arguments-that-are-always-wrong/

reply

[–] jalfarmer 11 years ago

The quote “When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.” is from the motion picture Starship Troopers made in 2004, not from the Heinlein novel it is based upon.

reply

[–] NewCliches 11 years ago

You'd better tell goodreads that: http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/880896-when-you-vote-you-are-exercisin g-political-authority-you-re-using

reply