[Kellan]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
Really? I think it's kind of a repulsive idea, the government treating those who ere as the "good servants" who get preferential treatment.

Agree.

See, I still don't need any of my own opinions!

[Styxx]

Originally posted by Kellan
See, I still don't need any of my own opinions!

You suck!

[Blue Lion]

Originally posted by Styxx


You suck!

I don't think he wants that one

[Nico]

Originally posted by NeoHunter
I heard there were these race called the Skinnies in the novels and that they were helping the bugs or something.

Wonder if they will be doing a sequel to the Starship Troopers movie...

yugga, I can add to the first part and reply to the second one:
No ( )! Coz they have made  Starship troopers chronocle instead ( that's a CGI series, i've seen it thx to kazaa -yeepee kazaa- ). And the skinnies definitively play a part in the series, btw.
About reasons and stuff, you have a lot of explanations in the series too. And a lot of elements from the books ( the powersuits for exemple, tho they're not as powerful ). And it's a new plot, not a sequel to the movie btw ( Dizzy isn't killed, etc etc ).
Good series for a CGI one.

[NeoHunter]

I saw the CGI version too. My cousin bought the VCD versions and I watched almost all of them except the Klendathu campaign and the one where the Earth was already invaded by the bugs. Honestly, I think the CGI version is a bit better than the movie.

Speaking of powersuits, has anyone here played the Starship Troopers game? Its not a bad game. The powersuits in the game rock!! Rocket launchers, miniguns and lots of other wonderful surprises for the bugs. They even had the Whiskey Outpost scenerio in it. Through skillful command and control, I managed to save most of my team. Guess how manay people I lost? None! Only injured soldiers and they got shipped off before ethey could be killed.

[NegspectahDek]

and if I remember correctly, Dizzy was a man, and he was killed, in that raid on the skinny's planet.

I have to disagree with Stryke and Kellan.  To be terribly cliched, nothing given has any value, and for proof, look at voter turnout rates in the US.  30% is considered great.  The vast majority of people dont value something as much if its given to them.  Vothing is a serious responsibility.  Why would you want just anyone to weild that power?  In the US, all you have to be able to do is read.  No minimum education, no basic required knowledge of the issues, nothing.  That in my opinion is the utmost in irresponibility.  Unfortnately there is no easy way to make sure someone is fit to vote.  But one way to seperate the wheat from the chaff so to speak is to see who is willing to risk their lives for the well being of others.  If you're willing to die to protect humanity, I'd say you're more likely to have humanites best interests at heart.

[Nico]

Originally posted by NeoHunter
I saw the CGI version too. My cousin bought the VCD versions and I watched almost all of them except the Klendathu campaign and the one where the Earth was already invaded by the bugs. Honestly, I think the CGI version is a bit better than the movie.

I prefer the movie, more gore, and in the series, they're all nice and clean, while the fact that Ricco was a real dumbass in the movie was cool ( yeah it's cool, you don't often see a dumb hero in american movies ). And the brainbug is much more scary in the movies too. But the ships ( save for the big ones ) are much better in the series I gotta admit, and I like all those cool new bugs

[Dark_4ce]

Originally posted by NegspectahDek
and if I remember correctly, Dizzy was a man, and he was killed, in that raid on the skinny's planet.

I have to disagree with Stryke and Kellan.  To be terribly cliched, nothing given has any value, and for proof, look at voter turnout rates in the US.  30% is considered great.  The vast majority of people dont value something as much if its given to them.  Vothing is a serious responsibility.  Why would you want just anyone to weild that power?  In the US, all you have to be able to do is read.  No minimum education, no basic required knowledge of the issues, nothing.  That in my opinion is the utmost in irresponibility.  Unfortnately there is no easy way to make sure someone is fit to vote.  But one way to seperate the wheat from the chaff so to speak is to see who is willing to risk their lives for the well being of others.  If you're willing to die to protect humanity, I'd say you're more likely to have humanites best interests at heart.

Well, thats basically fascism. Cause that would make two different social classes. And people HATE being of different stature from the rest of them. And would you defend you're country with you're life for the right to vote? I the hell wouldn't. The only time I would defend my country, would be at a time of war, when my home and family is threatened. But not whenI just want to be better than other people and have a right to vote. Thats glory seeking. Being in the army doesen't really require brains either. So there could be a whole lot more powerhungry war monging action buffs becoming citizens for the right to vote, then smart people who might really know what the hell is going on. Much like what Starship Troopers The Movie shows. The whole concept is flawed.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by NegspectahDek
and if I remember correctly, Dizzy was a man, and he was killed, in that raid on the skinny's planet.

I have to disagree with Stryke and Kellan.  To be terribly cliched, nothing given has any value, and for proof, look at voter turnout rates in the US.  30% is considered great.  The vast majority of people dont value something as much if its given to them.  Vothing is a serious responsibility.  Why would you want just anyone to weild that power?  In the US, all you have to be able to do is read.  No minimum education, no basic required knowledge of the issues, nothing.  That in my opinion is the utmost in irresponibility.  Unfortnately there is no easy way to make sure someone is fit to vote.  But one way to seperate the wheat from the chaff so to speak is to see who is willing to risk their lives for the well being of others.  If you're willing to die to protect humanity, I'd say you're more likely to have humanites best interests at heart.

Yeah, i'm sure the SS would agree with you.......

What if the very reasons for fighting are wrong?  Who stops the war?  The soldiers can't -  they're fighting it.  The politicians won't - it helps them (distracts public from other issues, like the economy or inequalities - see 1984's 3 powers war over Africa).  But the public can - news always finds a way of filtering through, regardless of how totalitarian the governent is with it's media control.

[NegspectahDek]

Originally posted by aldo_14


Yeah, i'm sure the SS would agree with you.......

What if the very reasons for fighting are wrong?  Who stops the war?  The soldiers can't -  they're fighting it.  The politicians won't - it helps them (distracts public from other issues, like the economy or inequalities - see 1984's 3 powers war over Africa).  But the public can - news always finds a way of filtering through, regardless of how totalitarian the governent is with it's media control.

We fight wars for the wrong reasons now, government type has nothing to do with it.  Thats human nature.  Thinking about fascism in the context the book changes my perception of fascism.  To a united human race, fascism makes sense, mostly because it promotes us as a single entity and nothing should come before us.  As a species, that makes sense, cause when it comes down to it, its them or us.  Take it as it is now, and I can't say that I like fascism.  It was the basis of the 'master" german race and all that came from that belief.

From a moral stand point, I can't really defend fascism for one simple reason: human aggression.  Just like the point Verhoven was making about us not knowing who struck first, our aggression  would have us attacking someone else, whether or not it was for a good reason.

Either way, what was suggesting was modifying our existing system here in the US.  We still elect our corrupt officals (I have my own ideas about that), but not everyone can vote.  You need to prove that you care enough about the state of human affairs to affect them.


Well, thats basically fascism. Cause that would make two different social classes. And people HATE being of different stature from the rest of them. And would you defend you're country with you're life for the right to vote? I the hell wouldn't. The only time I would defend my country, would be at a time of war, when my home and family is threatened. But not whenI just want to be better than other people and have a right to vote. Thats glory seeking. Being in the army doesen't really require brains either. So there could be a whole lot more powerhungry war monging action buffs becoming citizens for the right to vote, then smart people who might really know what the hell is going on. Much like what Starship Troopers The Movie shows. The whole concept is flawed.


I basically agree with you here.  People dont like being in different classes,but we have them, and its pretty much inevitable.  The armed forces isnt for everyone, me included, though I would join to defend my home.  But you wont catch in the armed forces, risking my neck to stop communism, keep oil prices down, or collar a dictator we put in place.  I can't really speak on the army now, but in the book, Heinlein said they couldn't be dumb, there was too much they needed to know about there armor.  On top of that the boot camp process is designed to weed out as many the people who join for the wrong reasons as possible.  The book makes the distinction the movie doesn't that those who can't cut it don't.

[NeoHunter]

Uh...if I remember correctly, in the movie, the logic was that violence solves everything.

[NegspectahDek]

the movie, while good in its own right, is an abomination when compared to the book. And besides, that logic is true, in the long run.  Violence isn't always the best way to solve a problem, but if you want it taken care of, violence will do it.  To loosely paraphrase from the book, Rome and Carthage didn't like each other.  Rome razed Carthage.  Problem solved.

[Dark_4ce]

Originally posted by NegspectahDek
the movie, while good in its own right, is an abomination when compared to the book. And besides, that logic is true, in the long run.  Violence isn't always the best way to solve a problem, but if you want it taken care of, violence will do it.  To loosely paraphrase from the book, Rome and Carthage didn't like each other.  Rome razed Carthage.  Problem solved.

Uuuh. Thats not problem solving. Thats taking the easy way out. You have to realize that violence does not in fact solve anything. Look at whats happening in Israel right now. One violent act causes another. Back and forth, back and forth. What if the states decided to just nuke or wipe out Afganistan instead of what they're doing now? The world would go insane. Once you cross the lines in violence, it will only proceed to more violence. What do you think the smaller nations will think if they saw the states NUKE Afganistan? "Hell, if they used nukes I guess we can too."

Seriously, you have to look at the book in a grander scale. Its a propaganda book written by a man who was horrifed by world war 2 and writes a book about a goverment that WORKS. And being in war, he probably got so used to it that he believed it was the only way to solve things. Thats REALLY being narrow minded. And of course his lovely little utopian governemt system works in his book, cause HE wrote the book. He knows what the enemy is up to, so he just writes them acordingly, so that they won't do anything that would disrupt his propaganda message.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a hippy or anything. But when it comes to international politics and governments, violence is the WRONG way to go.

Yes, the movie is an "abomination" if you compare it to the book, but I think its better. Because it does not promote fascim, in shows us the true hypocracy and the flaws of the regime.  Which it truly has, and as you can see in history, never even worked.

[Kellan]

Originally posted by NegspectahDek
I have to disagree with Stryke and Kellan.  To be terribly cliched, nothing given has any value, and for proof, look at voter turnout rates in the US.  30% is considered great.  The vast majority of people dont value something as much if its given to them.  Vothing is a serious responsibility.  Why would you want just anyone to weild that power?  In the US, all you have to be able to do is read.  No minimum education, no basic required knowledge of the issues, nothing.  That in my opinion is the utmost in irresponibility.  Unfortnately there is no easy way to make sure someone is fit to vote.  But one way to seperate the wheat from the chaff so to speak is to see who is willing to risk their lives for the well being of others.  If you're willing to die to protect humanity, I'd say you're more likely to have humanites best interests at heart.

Surely if voter turnout is only 30% to begin with, you have nothing to worry about in terms of incapable people voting. If 30% of the population vote, that means that they are the 30 most driven, politics-oriented percent of the population, and thus can be reasonably expected to be more aware of the issues that they're voting for and so on. Those who really don't care about politics already have the right not to vote. There's no need to cement the system to force those who have voted in the past to vote in perpetuity, or vice versa.

All this "do x years' military service" stuff sounds like a Right-wing power fantasy. I'm sure those whining East Coast Liberals wouldn't join the army, thus eliminating them as a political force at a stroke. In fact, why don't you just line them up and shoot them?

[Styxx]

Originally posted by Kellan
...that means that they are the 30 most driven, politics-oriented percent of the population, and thus can be reasonably expected to be more aware of the issues that they're voting for and so on...

Or that they're the ones that got paid by some candidate to go there and vote. The current system is flawed, too bad we don't have any good alternative.

[NegspectahDek]

Originally posted by Dark_4ce


Uuuh. Thats not problem solving. Thats taking the easy way out. You have to realize that violence does not in fact solve anything. Look at whats happening in Israel right now. One violent act causes another. Back and forth, back and forth. What if the states decided to just nuke or wipe out Afganistan instead of what they're doing now? The world would go insane. Once you cross the lines in violence, it will only proceed to more violence. What do you think the smaller nations will think if they saw the states NUKE Afganistan? "Hell, if they used nukes I guess we can too."

Seriously, you have to look at the book in a grander scale. Its a propaganda book written by a man who was horrifed by world war 2 and writes a book about a goverment that WORKS. And being in war, he probably got so used to it that he believed it was the only way to solve things. Thats REALLY being narrow minded. And of course his lovely little utopian governemt system works in his book, cause HE wrote the book. He knows what the enemy is up to, so he just writes them acordingly, so that they won't do anything that would disrupt his propaganda message.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a hippy or anything. But when it comes to international politics and governments, violence is the WRONG way to go.

Yes, the movie is an "abomination" if you compare it to the book, but I think its better. Because it does not promote fascim, in shows us the true hypocracy and the flaws of the regime.  Which it truly has, and as you can see in history, never even worked.

it may be the easy way out, but it is still solving the problem, even if you dont want to see it that way.  Whats happening in israel is an example of of the inablility of the Palestinians to mount anything strong enough to get the Israelis to leave, and the unwillingness of the Israelis to use actions so strong that the Palestinians give up.  Its true that violence begats violence.  But sometimes, in international politics, it is the way to go.  Some people understand only violence.  Sometimes dimplomacy doesn't work, half assed diplomacy for damn sure doesn't work, and even half assed military solutions don't work.  When we try to solve problems like that, we end up with things like genocide (read: jews in Germany in WW2, muslims in bosnia, hutus and tusis in rwanda, and somalians in somalia.)

I think the book is a million times better.  Propaganda is just that, if you know what it is, you can look past it.  I never meant fascism was good.  I meant that some of Heinleins ideas were good.

[NegspectahDek]

Originally posted by Kellan


Surely if voter turnout is only 30% to begin with, you have nothing to worry about in terms of incapable people voting. If 30% of the population vote, that means that they are the 30 most driven, politics-oriented percent of the population, and thus can be reasonably expected to be more aware of the issues that they're voting for and so on. Those who really don't care about politics already have the right not to vote. There's no need to cement the system to force those who have voted in the past to vote in perpetuity, or vice versa.

All this "do x years' military service" stuff sounds like a Right-wing power fantasy. I'm sure those whining East Coast Liberals wouldn't join the army, thus eliminating them as a political force at a stroke. In fact, why don't you just line them up and shoot them?

 don't think you really understand.  The system we have doesn't guarantee anything.  And with such a low amount of voters, each vote carries more weight.  So the potential for abuse is greater.  As someone so graciously pointed out, people can be paid to vote one way or the other.  And if theres one thing politicians are, its corrupt.  The purpose of making someone earn their right to vote, is so that they treat it with deadly seriousness.  About those 'whining east coast liberals', people love genralizing. Everyone dodges the draft. read: BUSH.

[Dark_4ce]

Originally posted by NegspectahDek


it may be the easy way out, but it is still solving the problem, even if you dont want to see it that way.

Ok. Give us an example where problem was solved by violence without any further problems occuring from the solition?

Whats happening in israel is an example of of the inablility of the Palestinians to mount anything strong enough to get the Israelis to leave, and the unwillingness of the Israelis to use actions so strong that the Palestinians give up.  Its true that violence begats violence.

Exactly. So what do we learn? Violence will not solve this conflict.

But sometimes, in international politics, it is the way to go.  Some people understand only violence.  Sometimes dimplomacy doesn't work, half assed diplomacy for damn sure doesn't work, and even half assed military solutions don't work.  When we try to solve problems like that, we end up with things like genocide (read: jews in Germany in WW2, muslims in bosnia, hutus and tusis in rwanda, and somalians in somalia.)

Thats a load of bull****! Genocide is the cause of people who BELIEVE that violence solves problems! And you're asking me to READ about Jews in WW2?! DUDE! They were rounded up and murdered in camps because Hitler wanted a scapegoat to blame all of Germany's problems on. AS WELL as making the people believe they were impure so he could promote his crazy ass Arian race concept. Is this not solving a problem with violence? And you know what happened to Hitler and his little regime in the end don't you? Basically all you're examples spawned from trying to solve an issue with violence. As you can see, it does not work.

I think the book is a million times better.  Propaganda is just that, if you know what it is, you can look past it.  I never meant fascism was good.  I meant that some of Heinleins ideas were good.

 Yeah, if you DO know what the propaganda is, then you can look past it.

[NegspectahDek]

Originally posted by Dark_4ce


Ok. Give us an example where problem was solved by violence without any further problems occuring from the solition?

When did Hitler ever bother Europe again?  When did Carthage ever threaten Rome after it was razed and the land salted?


Exactly. So what do we learn? Violence will not solve this conflict.


Wrong.  What we learn is that diplomacy might solve it, and Israel's military measures and the Palestinian terrorism and resistance won't solve it.  Decisive violence would not SHOULD solve the middle east problem.



Thats a load of bull****! Genocide is the cause of people who BELIEVE that violence solves problems! And you're asking me to READ about Jews in WW2?! DUDE! They were rounded up and murdered in camps because Hitler wanted a scapegoat to blame all of Germany's problems on. AS WELL as making the people believe they were impure so he could promote his crazy ass Arian race concept. Is this not solving a problem with violence? And you know what happened to Hitler and his little regime in the end don't you? Basically all you're examples spawned from trying to solve an issue with violence. As you can see, it does not work.


Lets back up.  In no case has a genocide been stopped by diplomacy.  What I should have said was they all could have been stopped with a descisive application of force.  Hitler was.

[Dark_4ce]

Ok, you have a point. WW2 was finally over after the allies attacked and took back most of Europe and the Pacific. Yes, of course. I'm not saying that the allies should have just thrown down they're weapons and just started pleading with the Axis.
However, Hitler does still bother Europe and the world to this day. Neo-Nazis. I don't care what you think about them, but they ARE a problem. An increasing problem.

My point is that the whole War wouldn't have even begun if it was not for the violent actions that preceded it. Being a realist, I do know that the world is stuck a vicious cycle, where one violent solution would be used to fix the problems caused by the violent solutions preceding it. And as we can see, its worked to a degree. What I mean is that this world is living in a state of vigilance becuase of the violent mistakes of the past. (God I'm starting to sound like a hippy. And I was even a sniper in the army...) What I'm trying to say I guess is that if the world  would join together in a regime where it would create two social classes where ultimate power is the talk of the day and the only way to solve conflicts is to just blow the heads off the enemies and anyone who happens to be in the way, would not work. Because its basically happening today.

See, you're looking at it from the inside. Yeah, I guess it would work IF the world would be united. But the realism is that the world is not united and will not be for many hundreds of more years, and when it does finally begin to unite, I doubt it will be under system like Heinleins. Thats the flaw of these governments, like fascism and communism. Yeah, they look great on paper but are inpractical and down right horrible in real life, because when one country adops that form of government, the other countries either fear or get angry at them for it. The only way that the mentioned governments might work is if the world would unite under one single government. But as I said before, it will not. And even if it would unite under any of those governments, think how easy it is to corrupt it. If the world would be united under a Heinlein Government, it would be quite easy for any member nation to just point a finger at another nation and say that they were a threat to the whole. Even though the nation is innocent. What would happen without negotiation? They would be wiped out.

NOW... As I've been reading this thread I can see that both of us do in fact have points. We know that decicive acts of force do sometimes solve a problem easier and more efficiently than half assed diplomacy. I agree, like the whole thing in Afganistan. I agree with America whole heartedly. But then again, we can see that other issues cannot be solved with violence alone like in Israel (come on, Israel has the power to wipe out all of the Palastinians if they wanted to, but that would just make EVERYONE pissed off). So, as it is today, the use of force should be a last resort, when all other methods of solving the problem has failed. That I agree in.

I guess my own utopian society where there wouldn't be a use of force also requires the world to be united, which again is an impossibility.

So I guess the way things are going now is at least for the moment the best way to handle things.