oh good, by dint of presidential fiat my country's military is being gutted today

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

That's not just ridiculous, it's pathetic. Writing a screenplay for a book you know nothing about, and apparently wasn't really interested in reading.

Actually Paul Verhoeven hated the book, it disgusted him. he threw away his copy calling it a "Fascist Utopia". Then went on to make a movie based upon the book, while lampooning the book at the same time dressing up everyone as Agents of the SS.

[ShadoWarrior]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

Actually Paul Verhoeven hated the book, it disgusted him. he threw away his copy calling it a "Fascist Utopia". Then went on to make a movie based upon the book, while lampooning the book at the same time dressing up everyone as Agents of the SS.

Which just demonstrates that he utterly failed to comprehend the book. The Wiki article on the book goes into nice detail refuting Verhoeven's cluelessness regarding what fascism is and how the society in book is categorically not a fascist state. Fascist states don't have democratic elections. Of course Verhoeven would have had to bother to read the whole book, and read it carefully. I'm sure that he started reading what little he read with preconceived notions and only saw what he wanted to see.

Starship Troopers is one of Heinlein's finest works, IMO, and deservedly won the Hugo award in 1960. Its messages still resonate over 50 years later.

[Webstral]

Army Sgt., your argument deserves a well-considered reply. I'll keep working on it as time allows.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

Starship Troopers is one of Heinlein's finest works, IMO, and deservedly won the Hugo award in 1960. Its messages still resonate over 50 years later.

I agree. I especially appreciate his thesis that the people who are best fit to run the State are the ones who put their lives on the line in service of the State. Character outweighs capability.

I'm sick to death of American chickenhawks who couldn't be bothered to serve when they were young, then become warmongers after they are too old to participate. "We need to go get them Iranian/Muslims/terrorists/bad people/foreign nationals" when there's no "we" about it. I'm sick to death of Americans whose idea of citizenship is limited to the grudging payment of taxes. If only folks who had completed national service (not limited to the military) voted or could hold office, American politics would shift somewhat to the Right, but at least everyone in Congress would have similar experiences. They'd be able to sit down around a table with mutual respect for each other and the knowledge that everyone there had a commitment to the nation's best interests.

[Sanjuro]

I'm sick to death of American chickenhawks who couldn't be bothered to serve when they were young, then become warmongers after they are too old to participate.

Not only a problem in the US.
When he was leader of the Liberal Democrats , Paddy Ashdown (former SBS) used to say he was the only trained killer to be a party leader. Then he would add:
"Mrs Thatcher was entirely self-taught."

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro

Not only a problem in the US.
When he was leader of the Liberal Democrats , Paddy Ashdown (former SBS) used to say he was the only trained killer to be a party leader. Then he would add:
"Mrs Thatcher was entirely self-taught."

You know, for all the reasons that I liked the Iron Lady, her willingness to take anyone and everyone to task has always been the tops. And that quote is spot on!

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Webstral

I agree. I especially appreciate his thesis that the people who are best fit to run the State are the ones who put their lives on the line in service of the State. Character outweighs capability.

I agree with the sentiment of this idea, but I think that the premise is a little thin.

There was a really interesting article in TIME magazine a couple of months ago about the U.S. military becoming more insular over the past decade or so. Real wages for members of the military have risen faster than the national average. The proportion of Republicans vs. Democrats currently serving in the U.S. military has been skewing further and further right. The military is currently not a representative cross section of the rest of the country. More military men and women hail from the south and midwest than from other regions. The military is, in effect, one very large red state.

I guess I'm just afraid that Heinlein's political ideal would in fact lead to a martial society and/or fascist or feudalistic state. Any civilization/state in history that has based citizenship/voting rights and office-holding on military service has gone that route, except maybe for Athens.

Instead of military service being a prerequisite for voting rights, make it any public service job- a year in the peace corps, teaching in public schools, working for a free clinic, etc.

Originally Posted by Webstral

I'm sick to death of American chickenhawks who couldn't be bothered to serve when they were young, then become warmongers after they are too old to participate. "We need to go get them Iranian/Muslims/terrorists/bad people/foreign nationals" when there's no "we" about it. I'm sick to death of Americans whose idea of citizenship is limited to the grudging payment of taxes. If only folks who had completed national service (not limited to the military) voted or could hold office, American politics would shift somewhat to the Right, but at least everyone in Congress would have similar experiences. They'd be able to sit down around a table with mutual respect for each other and the knowledge that everyone there had a commitment to the nation's best interests.

Hear, hear! This reminds me of the scenes in F911 where Moore acosts Congressmen and asks them if they'd be willing to send their kids to Iraq. IIRC, only one congressman had a kid on active duty in Iraq at the time.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Raellus

There was a really interesting article in TIME magazine a couple of months ago about the U.S. military becoming more insular over the past decade or so. Real wages for members of the military have risen faster than the national average. The proportion of Republicans vs. Democrats currently serving in the U.S. military has been skewing further and further right. The military is currently not a representative cross section of the rest of the country. More military men and women hail from the south and midwest than from other regions. The military is, in effect, one very large red state.

Sad but very true, but then the military has always had a large percentage of its people come form the West, Mid West and Southern states. And that usually means that the military tends to be a lot more conserative than the rest of the country. Two of the most populous states are NY and CA...and its surprising how few people from those states serve.

I guess I'm just afraid that Heinlein's political ideal would in fact lead to a martial society and/or fascist or feudalistic state. Any civilization/state in history that has based citizenship/voting rights and office-holding on military service has gone that route, except maybe for Athens.

Instead of military service being a prerequisite for voting rights, make it any public service job- a year in the peace corps, teaching in public schools, working for a free clinic, etc.

I can live with some form of national service, be it Meals on Wheels, March of Dimes, Habitats for Humanity and so on...right on up to offering to pay the tution for doctors/nurses in return for 6 years in a free clinic. The key point is that as long as the individual contributes to society, than they earn the right to take part in leading that society...

Hear, hear! This reminds me of the scenes in F911 where Moore acosts Congressmen and asks them if they'd be willing to send their kids to Iraq. IIRC, only one congressman had a kid on active duty in Iraq at the time.

Hmmmm, intresting question...does Mr. Moore have any children who serve their country? If you can't walk the walk...then shut the f**k up!!!

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

Hmmmm, intresting question...does Mr. Moore have any children who serve their country? If you can't walk the walk...then shut the f**k up!!!

I don't think he has kids period. But he didn't vote to go to war, so it's apples and oranges regardless.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

...does Mr. Moore have any children who serve their country? If you can't walk the walk...then shut the f**k up!!!

I doubt it matters if he has children or not since he's only asking those in power you are making the decisions whether or not THEY have children in the military who THEY would be willing to put in harms way along with everyone elses kids....Mr Moore's opinion and personal position isn't the issue - the Congressmens is.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

I doubt it matters if he has children or not since he's only asking those in power you are making the decisions whether or not THEY have children in the military who THEY would be willing to put in harms way along with everyone elses kids....Mr Moore's opinion and personal position isn't the issue - the Congressmens is.

Last time I checked, the Congressional Record (2009), some 41% of the members of both houses had served in the military or had children who were currently or had served in the military. IMHO, when some one shoves a microphone into the face of a Congressman and bellows "do you have children who serve..." kinda ignores the fact that some members of both houses really do have full knowledge of what they are asking their fellow countrymen to do when they make the decision to send our troops into harm's way.

Michael Moore generates a lot of heat with his actions, to be fair, he does have some valid points, but, again, IMHO his primary purpose is not to make a difference, but to rake in money. All power to him! He has every right to earn a living at whatever makes him happy and I respect him for that. I am also of the opinion that Mr. Moore either ignores or completely disregards the facts when they may happen to interfere with the story that he is spinning.

Sorry, but when I see someone trying to score points for their agenda by pulling, for example, some of Mr. Moore's stunts, I do tend to see red and start asking, "and when did you last serve your country sir?"

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Instead of military service being a prerequisite for voting rights, make it any public service job- a year in the peace corps, teaching in public schools, working for a free clinic, etc.

I agree wholeheartedly. I might quibble about how long a non-hazardous commitment might have to be, but like you, Rae, I see hazards in having a society run exclusively by veterans. National service ought to be a genuine act of self-sacrifice or deprivation that causes folks from all walks of life and income levels to rub elbows as they serve the interests of the State for their term of service. Doctors working for a free clinic for a period of time certainly would end up paying their dues.

[Adm.Lee]

[QUOTE=Raellus;43244
There was a really interesting article in TIME magazine a couple of months ago about the U.S. military becoming more insular over the past decade or so. Real wages for members of the military have risen faster than the national average. The proportion of Republicans vs. Democrats currently serving in the U.S. military has been skewing further and further right. The military is currently not a representative cross section of the rest of the country. More military men and women hail from the south and midwest than from other regions. The military is, in effect, one very large red state.

I guess I'm just afraid that Heinlein's political ideal would in fact lead to a martial society and/or fascist or feudalistic state. Any civilization/state in history that has based citizenship/voting rights and office-holding on military service has gone that route, except maybe for Athens.

Instead of military service being a prerequisite for voting rights, make it any public service job- a year in the peace corps, teaching in public schools, working for a free clinic, etc. [/QUOTE]

From my readings, the rightward (and evangelical Christian) shift among the services has been a slow increase since the '70s (i.e. the shift from conscription). I don't know that it is correctable, or needs correcting, but it should preclude something like military service before voting rights. Now, if conscription had remained in place, my opinion might have been different.

Either way, I prefer the idea of national service of some kind before voting rights* . I would prefer it not to be purely military service, not least because my own medical history prevented me from serving. Teachers' Corps, service jobs, big infrastructure projects, doctors to rural or urban clinics, whatever.

*Perhaps just before Federal voting rights? A high-school diploma/GED gets you the right to vote in local and state elections, but service is required before rights to vote in Federal elections? Just thinking out loud.