"3# Don't join the rebellion and the rebellion fails -> Everything goes back to normal with no cost or risk whatsoever to the individual."
If you truly believe there will be no cost you are either niave or just uniformed.
There is a huge cost to "everyone involved". The greatest generation paid it when they charged the beaches through chest deep water with machine guns (as described by my grandfather) cutting down the guys in front, behind and on either side of you. They were fighting an existential threat in a war that would determine not only the future of the nation but of the entire world, and the fought to protect their families and their buddies on each side of them. That spirit still exist today among a majority regardless of what the media says. We will do what must be done, whatever the cost, exactly as they did. Ronald Reagan "A time for choosing", It describes the exact choice we face today.
We romanticize WW2, but remember that it took a LOT of propaganda to get the US into the war. Had Pearl Harbor not been bombed, we likely would have not joined the effort until there was a directed threat.
The results were desirable, but the government dragged the soldiers into those trenches and into the D-Day invasion. We the people weren't rushing headlong into the fire for the sake of Europe or for the sake of assured freedom.
The American people are live and let live and isolationist by a large majority. And 100 years of war since WW2, each declared urgently necessary, hasn't done anything to sweeten intervention in world affairs among the population.
And now, by optics, those that say America First are grinding for war. We aren't trying to overcome the Rebel's Dilemma as brought up by mspm, we are trying to overcome the three generations of inertial frustration with war mongering politicians.
How should I take it? Are you implying that Americans hunger to spill the blood of their kin, but not of the outsider? The opposite?Perhaps that rebellion is not a war, but is somehow different?
American's taste for war is as a last resort. Whether that war is on our soil or on the soil a world away doesn't change much on that view. We haven't even approached the average person's internal cost:benefit calculation as defined by the Rebel's Dilemma - we are still in the phase of opposing the concept of war.
The problem with the WWII comparison is that WWII wasn't a rebellion. I agree that if the plan fails (which I don't think it's failing right now) there will definitely be a high price to pay if we allow an illegitimate Biden administration to run the country, but the point of the rebel's dilemma is that you don't need to convince either of us to join in the fight, it's the people on the edge that think they have a lot to lose by joining in a rebellion if it fails. Why give up everything you have now if the rebellion succeeds and you get all the benefits anyway? That's really the question that recruiters need to overcome when trying to find new members.
"3# Don't join the rebellion and the rebellion fails -> Everything goes back to normal with no cost or risk whatsoever to the individual." If you truly believe there will be no cost you are either niave or just uniformed. There is a huge cost to "everyone involved". The greatest generation paid it when they charged the beaches through chest deep water with machine guns (as described by my grandfather) cutting down the guys in front, behind and on either side of you. They were fighting an existential threat in a war that would determine not only the future of the nation but of the entire world, and the fought to protect their families and their buddies on each side of them. That spirit still exist today among a majority regardless of what the media says. We will do what must be done, whatever the cost, exactly as they did. Ronald Reagan "A time for choosing", It describes the exact choice we face today.
We romanticize WW2, but remember that it took a LOT of propaganda to get the US into the war. Had Pearl Harbor not been bombed, we likely would have not joined the effort until there was a directed threat.
The results were desirable, but the government dragged the soldiers into those trenches and into the D-Day invasion. We the people weren't rushing headlong into the fire for the sake of Europe or for the sake of assured freedom.
The American people are live and let live and isolationist by a large majority. And 100 years of war since WW2, each declared urgently necessary, hasn't done anything to sweeten intervention in world affairs among the population.
And now, by optics, those that say America First are grinding for war. We aren't trying to overcome the Rebel's Dilemma as brought up by mspm, we are trying to overcome the three generations of inertial frustration with war mongering politicians.
Ww2 wasn't a rebellion
This is a "coke isn't water" comment.
How should I take it? Are you implying that Americans hunger to spill the blood of their kin, but not of the outsider? The opposite?Perhaps that rebellion is not a war, but is somehow different?
American's taste for war is as a last resort. Whether that war is on our soil or on the soil a world away doesn't change much on that view. We haven't even approached the average person's internal cost:benefit calculation as defined by the Rebel's Dilemma - we are still in the phase of opposing the concept of war.
The problem with the WWII comparison is that WWII wasn't a rebellion. I agree that if the plan fails (which I don't think it's failing right now) there will definitely be a high price to pay if we allow an illegitimate Biden administration to run the country, but the point of the rebel's dilemma is that you don't need to convince either of us to join in the fight, it's the people on the edge that think they have a lot to lose by joining in a rebellion if it fails. Why give up everything you have now if the rebellion succeeds and you get all the benefits anyway? That's really the question that recruiters need to overcome when trying to find new members.