This is exactly the case. He wants to rage on the Greens, and is wilfully not engaging any thought into their position.
It’s simple. The article states the Greens don’t think we should’ve been a part of the war games. This is in line with their policy. The whole “what should we do then” is just begging the question. The article, and OPs initial question, was around why the Greens don’t support these games. This is clear in both the article and their policy page, and thus that question is settled.
My point is, it’s very easy to say what we shouldn’t be doing, it’s much harder to come up with an alternative.
Neither the green party, or the commenter I’m replying to, seem to have any idea what we should be doing instead, besides some very vauge and aspirational goals.
Are you telling me that this is the only possible way of training troops? If we don’t join the US in potentially antagonistic wargames, there is literally no other option and our troops will go completely untrained?
So you think no-one can criticise an action if they do not present an alternative? That’s a pretty ridiculous take, but ok, lets see:
Normal training, not “wargames” with other countries
Wargames internally, in NZ
Liaising with militaries in active war-zones, such as Ukraine, to provide specific training
Don’t have extra training at all, over what is normally done
I’m not in the military, but these are four alternatives to their current action that I came up with in about 30s. I’m sure better minds could find a solution relatively easily.
I find the requirement of providing an alternative otherwise you dismiss any criticism silly.
My point was, it’s very easy to stand back and criticise, much harder to come up with the alternative, and I don’t typically respect the opinions of people who only do the former.
I think your point is that you are a right wing person who fetishises the military and wants the west to engage in an active war with China. Any policy or even speech that seeks any other way of relating to china is going to get vehement and loud pushback from you. You think the only way to relate to china is via the most violent way possible.
This is exactly the case. He wants to rage on the Greens, and is wilfully not engaging any thought into their position.
It’s simple. The article states the Greens don’t think we should’ve been a part of the war games. This is in line with their policy. The whole “what should we do then” is just begging the question. The article, and OPs initial question, was around why the Greens don’t support these games. This is clear in both the article and their policy page, and thus that question is settled.
My point is, it’s very easy to say what we shouldn’t be doing, it’s much harder to come up with an alternative.
Neither the green party, or the commenter I’m replying to, seem to have any idea what we should be doing instead, besides some very vauge and aspirational goals.
An alternative to participating in the war games? The obvious alternative is not participating in war games.
How do we get our troops this type of training otherwise?
Are you telling me that this is the only possible way of training troops? If we don’t join the US in potentially antagonistic wargames, there is literally no other option and our troops will go completely untrained?
Any idea whatsoever what that alternative is then?
This is what I’m getting at, I’m sick of people bringing up problems without offering a solution.
So you think no-one can criticise an action if they do not present an alternative? That’s a pretty ridiculous take, but ok, lets see:
I’m not in the military, but these are four alternatives to their current action that I came up with in about 30s. I’m sure better minds could find a solution relatively easily.
I find the requirement of providing an alternative otherwise you dismiss any criticism silly.
My point was, it’s very easy to stand back and criticise, much harder to come up with the alternative, and I don’t typically respect the opinions of people who only do the former.
I think your point is that you are a right wing person who fetishises the military and wants the west to engage in an active war with China. Any policy or even speech that seeks any other way of relating to china is going to get vehement and loud pushback from you. You think the only way to relate to china is via the most violent way possible.