Not that this is GD or anything, but you seriously think that ‘Historical reflection’ makes the first gulf war look worse from the US’s perspective? And you think that the world was sold a bill of goods by, presumably the US wrt what? The poor Iraqi’s trying to keep the evil Kuwaiti’s down and being stomped on for their trouble by the US and our unwilling allies, forced into the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ at sword point??
I know this is off topic but the First Gulf war was indeed spurious. Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraqi Oil fields. Saddam approached The US Ambassador to Iraq, April Gillespie, and essentially told her he was going to use Military force to stop them she told him the US “has no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts” which he took as a green light to invade. Remember he had a good relationship with the US back then because Iraq was our Ally against Iran.
And that’s not even getting into how they had the daughter of a Marketing exec pretend to be Kuwaiti and tell the world that Iraqi troops were killing babies…
That war was sold almost as falsely as the second one.
Quickly, it looks worse because it now appears as simply a precursor for the second Gulf War. That the first one wasn’t a massive clusterfuck like the second was is a blessing. But it puts into even more unflattering light our military intentions in the area.
And no, we didn’t put a gun to anyone’s head. But history has also shown that we will go to great lengths to lie or fabricate rational to convince our allies that we’re doing the “right” thing. That’s not to defend Saddam (you’re putting words in my mouth about making him sympathetic), but that doesn’t mean the moral highground we claimed to have wasn’t severely compromised.
[/end hijack]
I think this is a spurious slant of reality, but I think this isn’t the place to debate the issue. Feel free to start a thread in GD if you would like to discuss it further…I’m fairly sure that even this is edging close to getting mods to enter in at this point. I guess that answers my question though…some folks obviously DO think along the lines of what MovieMogul is saying (you for one). Thanks for the answer.
ETA: I’ll also end the hijack as noted. Sorry for the digression…back to the movie/book discussion. 
Of course, in 1997 when Starship Troopers was released, the second Gulf War was still 4 years away. At that time, was there still a huge impression that the coalition was sold a bill of goods?
If you really believe stabbing someone for asking a question is a measured response and you’re not just white knighting for Verhoeven, that’s fucked up.
FWIW, to the extent that the film is satire of a specific war and not just fascist, warlike societies in general ; I think it’s about Viet-Nam more than anything. First, because just about every American anti-war film is about Viet-Nam :). But there are other items :
- the boot camp sequence is just Full Metal Jacket’s first half cranked to 11
- the bugs understand the humans (via brainsucking) and catch them off-guard/ambush them all the time ; the humans just refuse to understand what makes bugs tick with blind contempt
- much of the film follows a small patrol of infantry dudes air-dropped somewhere in the middle of The Shit with no support. Air cav, hooah.
- defending a firebase lost in the middle of nowhere against hordes of enemies. Smells like Khe Sanh, man. You don’t know, 'cause you weren’t there, maaan.
- bugs make heavy use of tunnels to catch the humans off-guard
- and of course, the general tone of bullshit propaganda and spin ; capped off by the premature victory dance of the ending : “we’re now totally winning this war because we’ve Accomplished One Thing ! (on one battlefield, on one planet). Now we’ve got these newfangled space-age Not_M-16s, too ! So do enlist !”
The movie hints that almost everything was the governments fault with the over-the-top-even-by-the-standards-of-the-movie Federal news reports laced throughout.
As I recall from the book, “we” accidentally ran into them and may have started things as a sort of “war for oil” in space. Then they slaughtered the religious colony and all bets were off. In Chapter 10 Heinlein got into the movement from “peace” (when Rico joined up) to “state of emergency” (while he was at Currie) to “war” just as he was joining his first Unit. BA was implied as the reason.
Something else the movie left out that the book used, to some degree, to explain some of the Bug movement and capabilities was the Skinnies". I really missed them in the “movie version”.
Good points…also, since the bugs can shoot flaming gas out of their arses, why don’t they use that trick on the planet?
You want to know a film that should be a satire, but probably isn’t?
13 Hours:The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi
The whole thing looks like a propaganda/recruiting video for Blackwater. Those rugged bearded rebels, doing The Right Thing, standing tall against those evil Muslims when all others ran! Why, they’re our true American Heroes! And look at that firepower! Big guns for big men! Oh, I’m getting hot just thinking about it…
And I’m sure the scene in the trailer where they two Real Men are stopped at the checkpoint, where they almost get into a shootout, is supposed to show how brave and tough they are, and NOT how they were in real life bully thugs and murderers, who thought rules did not apply to them, no sireebob.
Considering how the trailer specifically mentions the Ambassador, I’m not sure the movie is sending the message it intends. If this movie wants to show that the mercs were the people who defended helpless civilians, such as the ambassador, I think they should check their history, and see how Benghazi turned out.
I’m voting for intended satire.