I've not seen the movie. BUT - just from comparing the actual book (written by Heinlein, (c) 1959) with the Wikipedia page about the book...I would not take the article too seriously. Starship Troopers seems to be a book which lots of people "know" about (and have very strong opinions about)...but where the actual contents of the book regularly and repeatedly contradict what most people "know".
When young, I generally attributed this to malice, stupidity, etc. Now, I'm more inclined to figure "the most revealing things which people say are their lies". [Not sure who the quote is from.]
The relation between this movie and the original book is quite unique actually:
>Verhoeven tried to read the novel but "stopped after two chapters because it was so boring ... it is really quite a bad book ... it's a very right-wing book." He had Neumeier summarize the narrative for him, and found it militaristic, fascistic, and overly supportive of armed conflict, which clashed with Verhoeven's childhood experiences in German-occupied Netherlands during World War II. Verhoeven determined that he could use the basic plot to satirize and undermine the book's themes by deconstructing the concepts of totalitarianism, fascism, and militarism, saying "All the way through I wanted the audience to be asking, 'Are these people crazy?'"
A more interesting discussion IMO can be found here, mostly focused on why audiences of the day didn't see the film as satire, but basically as a return to goofy 1980s movies:
> "Perhaps it was the lack of any clear dystopian imagery in the day-to-day life of the Federation's populace (that any lesser film would have insisted on spoon-feeding to its audience) that resulted in the joke getting lost. It seems that without that heavy nod to the audience to telegraph that what they're seeing is intended to be seen as satirical propaganda, Starship Troopers is basically identical to any other war or action film produced by Hollywood."
> "The valorization of not just individual soldiers, but also of the military institution and its noble purpose; the careful casting of attractive actors, backed by teams of make-up artists to depict what is supposed to be the average, everyday soldier; the insistence on portraying the enemy as a faceless and malicious entity, motivated by a singular desire to destroy all that is good and civilized… These are all common themes that everyone can recognize."
A similar movie, though not intended to be satire, was "Invasion USA" starring Chuck Norris (1985), featuring black-clad communist commandos invading Florida and launching an all-out assault on churches, family dinners and Christmas trees, shopping malls and local city councils, only to be thwarted by the martial arts hero. Here, the bugs are played by creepy Soviet agents and their Cuban sidekicks, for example:
When young, I generally attributed this to malice, stupidity, etc. Now, I'm more inclined to figure "the most revealing things which people say are their lies". [Not sure who the quote is from.]