Starship Troopers III

POSTED BY: Tankobite
UPDATED: Monday, June 15, 2026 16:12
VIEWED: 12379
PAGE 3 of 5

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE

STARTROOP

Friday, February 29, 2008 10:15 PM

I percieve that there is an undercurrent of defensiveness here in your statements and that is not at all where I was going. I was honestly trying to defuse a flame war.

As to what term to use when describing the system you dislike, I think you did fine on your second attempt. We can have a discussion on the issues of "service to the state above all" and "hostile under class" without having to work through what part of the host of definitions that Fascism has become in the years since WWII that you mean vs. what they mean to me.

The concept of "service to the state above all" is actually the longest lived of all governmental systems. In Ancient Egypt, the state was embodied in the god king and using the one two punch of religion and duty to state, it lasted for thousands of years. The Romans were able to remove the religiousity somewhat and still managed to hold together a cohesive state for several hundred years. The Chinese Empire is another example. The representative government that we all regard as normal has not been nearly so long lived and I include the ancient Greek and Roman Republics and the Icelandic Athling (the longest continually sitting assembly in the world) in those comparisions.

These governments fall apart when the state doesn't fufill it's end of the unspoken contract that made with their subjects (they aren't really citizens in the true sense) dealing with security and prosperity or entrance into the kingdom of heaven. When the king or the dictator or what ever term you want to use for the "Fearless Leader" focuses on his or her own needs vs. the state, the system fails. The "good" kings were the ones that bought into the same philosophy. These systems were strong enough to withstand the occasional "bad" king and only came apart when both parties gave it up as a bad job.

To be sure, I prefer a Representative form of government but it can be argued pursuasively that we are now moving away from that with our current "Regal" President.

I will also buy that hostile underclasses exist. They certainly did in Rome, Egypt, England (ancient, Victorian, and Modern) and many other systems. They become hostile only when it becomes clear to the members of the under class that they cannot move to the upper class.

Would Heinlein's system of allowing a move from class to class by the means of an enlistment in the military or other forms of service work? I frankly don't know. I do know however that the reverse is occuring in this country with our wealthy individuals and government officials starting wars where they will not serve.

I truly believe that some form of universal service requirement is a good thing. If the service requirement (Like that of Germany, Austria and Sweden) takes into account service in places like Americorps or Vista that do not require some one to bear arms. The good it does is a side benefit to the real social benefit where, at least in my time in the service, you were quartered with blacks, jews, hispanics, and even a few white guys and you learned to trust them like brothers. It wasn't perfect by any means but it was a great leveler.

We don't mix the classes much in our society anymore (military service in my fathers age group approached 17% male and female) down to 3% in current times and that lack of mixing is, I think, at the heart of the resurgence of hate crimes and discrimination. Most people really don't know anyone outsice their own demographic and don't care. Its one of the good things about lists like this. Mixing does occur ;-)

If you think I am just speaking about the current occupant of the White House, guess again, Clinton was also pretty free with US troops in a war zone. Both sides are learning the "Royalty" game.

Much of the Heinlein canon is anti-war in nature which is the case with most serving officers, especially those have seen combat. Read his comments in Lazerus Long's Notebook if you don't believe me. I won't bore you with my "There I Was" stories but suffice it to say that I don't want anyone else to s

TANKOBITE

Friday, February 29, 2008 10:56 PM

I wasn't responding to anyone; the movie just bothers me a lot. I'm heading back up home, so I'm sorry to say I haven't read your comment, but I'll give it the time it deserves later on this evening.

Edit: I'll grant that we had some involvement, but I wouldn't really consider Starship Troopers a Vietnam book; mostly I'd call that after Gulf Of Tonkin and we actually had divisions on the ground over there-but that's my personal preference. Before that, it was just a time when not many people paid any close attention to what was going on over there.
-----------------------------------------------------------
There's a widow in sleepy Chester
Who weeps for her only son;
There's a grave on the Pabeng River,
A grave that the Burmans shun;
And there's Subadar Prag Tewarri
Who tells how the work was done.

STARTROOP

Friday, February 29, 2008 11:28 PM

You are absolutely correct for the general populous. Heinlein,based on his other writings, clearly was thinking about it.

ALLIETHORN7

Saturday, March 1, 2008 12:08 AM

I have to say, those new bugs- yeah, the ones that shoot laser beams out of its eye? Yeah, that reminds me so much of the aliens from War of the Worlds that I wouldn't be surprised if they are sued.

On another note, I like the book, the TV Series, and the movie (In that order, mind), although I think most folks thought (Rightly) that the second was a steaming pile. But I don't try to compare them at all, as the book is far and away much better.

Something that I simply CAN't reconcile is that the movie showed the bugs as mindless meatsheilds. In the book, tey had ships, rockets, lasers- yes, the Brain bugs, but, then again, the bugs were described as a sort of perfect communism. So the movie tried to take the war- one the Federation was loosing because they had been outflanked, outmanuvered, and, yes, outgunned by a fair opponent- into a slugfest of Quantity vs. Quality (Although which was which is debateable, as the Fed troops die as fast as Ruskies in WWII). And, don't forget- the bugs were actively capturing humans, to find out how we worked, whereas the movie showed them slaughtering us.

So, yeah. Good movie, but it botches up the book so bad that, well, it's complete bumf as a movie version of ST. Bug Hunt is right.

-Danny

Choke choke again
I thought my demons were my friends
Getting me in the end
They're out to get me
Since I was young
I've tasted sorrow on my tongue
And this sweet chugga gun
Does not protect me

That's right
Trigger between my eyes
Please strike, Make it quick now

The Band of the week is... Korn
Gott weiß ich will kein Engel sein.
http://www.myspace.com/otherrandomdude

RICKKER

Saturday, March 1, 2008 12:56 AM

I loved the book, I took the movie with a grain of salt. Movies will never be the same/as good as the books. the closesed being Harry Potter/Sorcerers stone. Only caught a glimpse of the second movie. Really enjoyed the animated series, I bought my friend the collection as they came out. The animated series was intended to blend both the movie and the book. I'll definetly check out number 3. As for the politics of the book, having a military background I agree with a lot of what Heinlein says. When you know what effects your decisions have you tend to thik a bit harder to make the right choice.

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, March 1, 2008 2:28 AM

Quote:
I was honestly trying to defuse a flame war.

As was I, and it looks like we managed, so it's all good.

Problem with an autocratic-empire (can we maybe get away with this one?) of said type is that it requires a few things that make it totally unsustainable in the long run, especially in a technological age.

One need is for an external threat that citizens fear more than the government, and Heinlens novel, there IS an actual, real, external threat - the Romans and Egyptians got by on that a while, but eventually once the threat is subverted or diminished, they turn to cooking up often laughable "boogeymen" that don't hold water so much, and eventually folks get the idea that maybe the primary threat to their prosperity isn't external after all.

Hilarity generally ensues, just ask the French.

The other need is expansion and/or resources, and sooner or later you either run out of folks you can conquer without too much trouble, or the farmers and peasants start wondering why, if THEY grow and gather all the food, why is everyone at court fat, and they're starving.

Again, Hilarity generally ensues - a peasant riot is the surest way to the destruction of an empire there is, not because they're any good at fighting, but because if they're busy fighting you, they ain't growing FOOD no more, and over time that is the most telling blow of all.

Very true that a leader, king or what have you must see to the needs of his people, or he'll wind up in a world of hurt - the problem with kings comes from generational instability due to ever more protected and insulated from the populace descendants - something subverted in a very interesting fashion within the short story "Stone Lives" by Paul Di Filippo, which you can find in Mirrorshades: The Cyberpunk Anthology Edited by Bruce Sterling.

The idea of moving upwards in class through service is an interesting one, but I offer the counter of something that has been preying on my mind as of late.

Most of the laws and rules I am bound by, were thrust upon me at the moment of my birth here, without my input, voted and decided long before I was ever born and thus had no impact on them at the time, and for the next eighteen years, was forbidden any impact on them, and as you have noted we have less and less ability to have input now.

Why should one have to prove themself, when they have already been forcefully subjected to a society, and it's rules and laws that they never agreed to and had no input in forming ?

I won't say the idea is without merit, but Heinlens novel does take it to an extreme - I would say, more appropriate that it not be required for voting rights, but rather required to run for public office, which would bring it more in line with the social and government compact concept you speak of.

I also subject to you that outright, downright poverty is also a pretty good leveller, you learn right quick to discard any such idiotic notions and learn to work together with anyone willing, or you starve.
Something some folks would learn real quick in certain places if we cut off food relief shipments.

I'm not fond of our current bunch of chair warmers up in DC myself, but then again I am not at all fond of the system that produces them either - and I do agree that it's moving very rapidly to a form of corporate feudalism that sets my teeth on edge just thinkin about it.

As for language, well, I try to be accurate without much concern to such things, people are so easily-offended these days I generally wind up offending them regardless, but dancing around something easily described is sure a nitwit way to communicate, innit ?

I ramble too, welcome to the club of old bastards with too much education to be welcome in our current lowest-common-denominator society.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

STARTROOP

Saturday, March 1, 2008 7:13 PM

I don't disagree that selecting leaders based on who their parents were is not the most efficient system. But even with that, those systems worked. You mentioned that they needed a bogey man, I'll ask how that is different from our representative government that has trumped up many bogey man to keep us in line.

The Communists were actually trying to bury us but we could and did beat them with our economy. We then proceeded to things like the War on Drugs and the War on Terror. Don't misunderstand me, I am not promoting an authoritarian form of government, its just that the maladies you late at the feet of that system also apply to just about any other form of government inlcuding our own.

You also ask why you should have to prove your self to a system you had no hand in forming. The answer comes in two parts. The first is purely pragmatic. Democracies and Republics survive only until those who are unproductive figure out they can vote themselves bread and circuses from the public coffers. Requiring something hard to do and that is basically altruistic in nature will weed out the truly unproductive and help educate the merely misguided.

Making this voluntary ensures that the Peace Corps, Americorp, the Military and any others that are defined as service aren't burdened with a bunch of useless drones and still make the experience valuable. This has been the case in places like Germany where it is required. There is a troublesome minority that go do their national serivce and frankly make no attempt to do anything.

This is surely preferable to other forms of qualifying the electorate such as requiring property ownership as did the Greeks or requiring the payment of a poll tax as we did in the south.

The other point is a bit more philosophical. It essentially boils down to the fact that people value what they earn. We have abysmal voting rate in this country despite the fact that voting is pretty easy to do. Many that do vote base it on sound bytes and not a real evaluation of policies and the character of the candidates. IF they valued their franchise more, perhaps they would study the issues more? Perhaps they would spend a bit more time thinking about how they vote. In this society, they vote still does matter. If you don't believe me, then consider this, why do the two primary parties spend so much money on the election? They want our votes as a path to power. A qualified electorate that valued its franchise might hold them to a higher standard.

I don't make any promises, but we currently have a lot of folks now in power who haven't served anyone save themselves. Who have lived in ivory towers most of their lives and really don't have an appreciation for what the bulk of society lives like.

Though it is probably a moot point since those in power don't want to mess with the system that provides there bread and circuses. Requiring them to earn a shot at public office might require them to think a little and they can't have that now can they? ;-)

VETERAN

Sunday, March 2, 2008 3:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Tankobite:
.....Words can't describe how depressed I am now. What dirty liars!

And here's the proof that they're lying to me.

...Dammit, why do they have to keep killing my favorite book?
......

There's a widow in sleepy Chester
Who weeps for her only son;
There's a grave on the Pabeng River,
A grave that the Burmans shun;
And there's Subadar Prag Tewarri
Who tells how the work was done.

These two are screw ups. I didn't like the first movie and didn't even know there was a sequel. It's a shame they take the title of a great book and create their own thing. I'll give you a couple of instances:

I remember in the book when Ricco was in OCS and Carmen came to take him to dinner. Heinlen makes a point of telling us how she took off her hat and her head was clean shaven. Following it up with you don't need your hair getting in the way during zero gravity manuvers. In the movie, however, they saw fit to have a zero gravity scene with Carmen's flowing hair all over the place.

The second is even more important. The Mobile Infantry does not, I repeat DOES NOT, actively recruit. Heinlein was very clear on this. Everything was done to discourage enlistment in the MI. When Johnny enlists he notes that the recruitment officer is a multiple amputee, and he's delibrately abrupt even rude with Johnny. He even tells Johnny that his injuries were part of the reason why he was selected as a recruitment officer. And what do we see as a trailer? A dashing Johnny Ricco asking people to join up.... Absolute tripe with total disregard to what Heinlien had in mind.

Not to mention tactics. MI doesn't use concentrated fire power. Don't need it so much one MI in a suit could take out a squad of tanks. Some suits have rockets and even small nuclear devices. Of course there are no suits in the movie.

These guys have stolen the name Starship Troopers and created something different. and frankly what they made is lousy. They should go get jobs as waiters becaue they're no talent bums. Of course as waiters they'd be likely to rewrite your order for steak and a baked potato bringing you steaming plate of hagus with a side of lima beans. I really and truly wish them bankruptcy and total failure.

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, March 2, 2008 3:28 AM

I concur Vet - in spite of philosophical differences, the book is quite good, I feel it demeans it to slap the name on the movies they have produced since they are clearly a different animal altogether.

Good points as well, Startroop.

Taken by themselves, the movies ain't all that bad for hollywood standard-issue action-movie fodder, I just find myself offended that hey would slap the Starship Troopers name on a franchise that has utterly no viable relation to the books they claim to be basing it from.

-Frem

GRIZWALD

Monday, March 3, 2008 6:20 PM

I LOVED the recruitment section of the book! I just laughed and laughed. The part about the Canine Corps... LOL! Now I have to go read it again.

___________________________________________________
High Priestess of Pork and Ag-Related Activities of the MYTHICAL LAND OF IOWA

Click on my profile for my Annoyingly Long List of Firefly Links.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE