The invictus games.

[Beso]

Hopefully they don't last long.

[Niamh.]

had to google them, it says they're postponed till 2022? :suspect:

[Beso]

had to google them, it says they're postponed till 2022? :suspect:

Yes, hopefully it's the last one we have.

[Niamh.]

Yes, hopefully it's the last one we have.

Oh I thought you'd be behind injured service men and women having a sporting event for themselves or is this something to do with not liking Harry?

[Beso]

Oh I thought you'd be behind injured service men and women having a sporting event for themselves or is this something to do with not liking Harry?

No, I just dont want to see injured sevice men or women anymore..

For these games to happen we need both, so me personally., well, I would prefer no more wars.

[Niamh.]

No, I just dont want to see injured sevice men or women anymore..

For these games to happen we need both, so me personally., well, I would prefer no more wars.

Ok, unusual way to say No More War but I can agree with that message :thumbs:

[Beso]

In a way, promoting these games is promoting war.

Dont you think?

[James]

The Invictus Games is a good event for people that have been injured. THe stories behind the competitors are always emotional.

[Niamh.]

In a way, promoting these games is promoting war.

Dont you think?

No, I don't think that. Do you think wearing a Poppy promotes war?

[rusticgal]

Well I think it is a great thing....one thing Harry has done that I commend him on. I dont know whether people will have a lot of interest watching the build up on Netflix and watching them in training...:shrug:

[arista]

Brummies react to potential Birmingham bid
to host Invictus Games

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/brummies-react-potential-birmingham-bid-20875001

[Marsh.]

In a way, promoting these games is promoting war.

Dont you think?

That's like saying a ward in a hospital that caters to cancer patients is "promoting" it. :facepalm: What a bizarre mental flip just to justify the fact you don't like something associated with Prince Harry. :joker:

[arista]

https://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Birmingham-Invictus-e1624369691557.jpg

[AnnieK]

Knowing a number of injured veterans, these games are a huge thing to them. They were injured serving their country and so to give them sone recognition to what they can still achieve is a big thing.

[arista]

[Prince Harry announces return of Invictus Games in Germany

Harry is bringing the Invictus Games back
after he had to cancel the event in 2020 and
this year because of the coronavirus pandemic.
The Associated Press
June 12, 2021 ]

[bots]

it's pretty petty to criticize something as beneficial as the invictus games just because they are associated with harry

[arista]

it's pretty petty to criticize something as beneficial as the invictus games just because they are associated with Harry



No its normal

[Crimson Dynamo]

For me it's like the Paralympics, just not something I'd watch or be in the slightest bit interested in. Or like the pride of Britain awards.

[Livia]

I watched the last Invictus games. The competitors had all been injured serving their country and these games give them so much, some of them overcome unimaginable injuries. But if you don't want to watch them, it's not compulsory.

[Beso]

No, I don't think that. Do you think wearing a Poppy promotes war?

You dont need future war to wear a poppy, you wear the poppy to remember.

But for the invictus games to continue, then there must be wars going on to injure the future competitors or we will just end up with very very old people taking part each year, until there are either none left or only 2 participating nations.

[Beso]

it's pretty petty to criticize something as beneficial as the invictus games just because they are associated with harry

But that's not what I'm doing....

My dislike for him did bring me to think about the games today, that is true.

But dont you find it interesting that we will need wars in the future to keep these games alive:shrug:

[Beso]

The Invictus Games is a good event for people that have been injured. THe stories behind the competitors are always emotional.

But it's not a good thing if they have to keep happening year after year after year after year.:nono:

[Marsh.]

But that's not what I'm doing....

My dislike for him did bring me to think about the games today, that is true.

But dont you find it interesting that we will need wars in the future to keep these games alive:shrug:

No because the games exist FOR them.

They don't start wars to provide for Invictus.

Honestly. Think. :facepalm:

[Beso]

No because the games exist FOR them.

They don't start wars to provide for Invictus.

Honestly. Think. :facepalm:

You havnt told me anything I dont know in this post..:shrug:

[Beso]

What I'm saying is, as much as these games are a benefit to the participants, it does rely on conflict for it to be able to continue.

So I dont really see why it should be promoted tbh.

[Niamh.]

What I'm saying is, as much as these games are a benefit to the participants, it does rely on conflict for it to be able to continue.

So I dont really see why it should be promoted tbh.

Do you think countries are deciding to go to War just so the Invictus Games can continue? That doesn't seem likely :laugh:

[bots]

Do you think countries are deciding to go to War just so the Invictus Games can continue? That doesn't seem likely :laugh:

its an interesting concept :laugh:

[Beso]

Do you think countries are deciding to go to War just so the Invictus Games can continue? That doesn't seem likely :laugh:

:nono:

[Niamh.]

its an interesting concept :laugh:

Bit Hunger Game-ish :laugh:

[Beso]

Laugh if you want..

But I know I'm morally right on this.

[Marsh.]

You havnt told me anything I dont know in this post..:shrug:

Well, I have. You just haven't clocked on.

[AnnieK]

Wars will continue as long as there are humans in the world. Stopping invictus will not stop wars. All stopping it will do is stop those who serve being celebrated for achievements they make in the face of adversity

[Beso]

For these games to "be", so to say. Well that requires an act of violence to happen, we can all agree on that?

So any future events, 10years down the line, let's say!

Well they would also need acts of violence to happen, but the difference is, they would be FUTURE acts of violence.

So promoting the continuation of these games, is asking for further acts of violence to happen.

That's the way I've learnt to see it today, so I really dont think it should be permitted to be promoted for future events.

Fair enough every year its needed then the games should be highlighted and enjoyed, but the foundation as a trust, should not be allowed to promote itself.

[Marsh.]

So promoting the continuation of these games, is asking for further acts of violence to happen.

No it isn't. That's like saying charity shops are asking for poverty to continue.

If they could guarantee no more, it wouldn't be needed. It only exists because "further acts of violence" are inevitable.

[Beso]

No it isn't. That's like saying charity shops are asking for poverty to continue.

If they could guarantee no more, it wouldn't be needed. It only exists because "further acts of violence" are inevitable.

What further acts of violence involving the participating nations are you expecting to happen?

You cant just say its inevitable
.inevitable when? 2 years, 3 years..10yrs 20yrs...do the games just come and go when we have a fresh batch of injured soldiers ?

[Marsh.]

:facepalm:

Sure.

[Beso]

They will have to incorporate the emergency services into it in about 6 years if we keep refraining from putting our troops in harms way

[arista]

1410278096754913288

[Beso]

:facepalm:

Sure.

Defeatest..

Like your inevitable comment.:smug:

[AnnieK]

We have soldiers all over the world....peace keeping. Injuries to these men and women can happen any time, sometimes when they are helping to stop conflicts escalating. If world peace were to be achieved there would be no need for invictus, until that happens the men and women who basically hand their lives to the government of the day to keep us and other nations safe should be able to be celebrated. It promotes nothing other than celebrating their sporting achievements often in the face of awful injuries. I don't think any soldier joins up in the hope they gets injured enough to participate in the games.

[Marsh.]

Defeatest..

Like your inevitable comment.:smug:

Well when you're so knotted up in your own irrational hate for someone that you'll argue the grass is blue and that the Invictus Games "promote war", I'll leave you and your drink to it.

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

:crazy:

[Beso]

Well when you're so knotted up in your own irrational hate for someone that you'll argue the grass is blue and that the Invictus Games "promote war", I'll leave you and your drink to it.

It doesn't promote war, it relies on it.

So shouldn't be promoted.

Like fags on the side of grand prix cars.

[Marsh.]

It doesn't promote war, it relies on it.

So shouldn't be promoted.

Like fags on the side of grand prix cars.

Sure

[bots]

We have soldiers all over the world....peace keeping. Injuries to these men and women can happen any time, sometimes when they are helping to stop conflicts escalating. If world peace were to be achieved there would be no need for invictus, until that happens the men and women who basically hand their lives to the government of the day to keep us and other nations safe should be able to be celebrated. It promotes nothing other than celebrating their sporting achievements often in the face of awful injuries. I don't think any soldier joins up in the hope they gets injured enough to participate in the games.

exactly Annie, and there are always conflicts going on around the world and always will be

[Beso]

I've just been looking up some medically discharged figures for 2020...I am sorry, but if we dont go to war, there simply wont be enough people to take part in future games.

[AnnieK]

I've just been looking up some medically discharged figures for 2020...I am sorry, but if we dont go to war, there simply wont be enough people to take part in future games.

Its not a case of us not going to war though. What should we do, sit back and wait for the war to come to our shores? Because if we don't deploy overseas to peace keep and help end conflicts before they start, they will come to us. We'd be sitting ducks. The military does a lot around the world....until you end fights over religion, oil, money, weapons there will always be conflict and to protect us we need a military. Its not conscription, our service men and women join to serve and protect their country and so to remove something that celebrates them and the achievements they make when injured is insulting to them. They are not forced to take part in Invictus if they are injured.

The premise of your thoughts is amazing....no wars would be ideal but world peace will never ve achieved

[Livia]

I've just been looking up some medically discharged figures for 2020...I am sorry, but if we dont go to war, there simply wont be enough people to take part in future games.

My first husband was caught by a roadside bomb and received injuries that later killed him. The lads who were with him both received serious injuries. So let's keep them in a cupboard somewhere in case people think they're promoting war.

[Nicky91]

My first husband was caught by a roadside bomb and received injuries that later killed him. The lads who were with him both received serious injuries. So let's keep them in a cupboard somewhere in case people think they're promoting war.

aww i feel sorry to hear that Livia :hug:

[Livia]

aww i feel sorry to hear that Livia :hug:
It was ten years ago now, Nicky. I'm happily married to someone else now.

[AnnieK]

Should we also do away with Help for Heroes, The Royal British Legion and other charities like War Child. Are they promoting war?

[Beso]

My first husband was caught by a roadside bomb and received injuries that later killed him. The lads who were with him both received serious injuries. So let's keep them in a cupboard somewhere in case people think they're promoting war.


Not what i'm saying at all..

[Livia]

Not what i'm saying at all..

I don't know what you're saying, Parm. No one wants war less than a soldier.

[Beso]

Should we also do away with Help for Heroes, The Royal British Legion and other charities like War Child. Are they promoting war?

Imm not asking for anything to be "done away with", I'm pointing out the need for conflict for the games to continue.

[Livia]

The games is for people who have been injured while serving.

People don't get injured so that they can compete.

[AnnieK]

Imm not asking for anything to be "done away with", I'm pointing out the need for conflict for the games to continue.

There is a "need" for every charity to continue though. There is a need for cancer for Macmillan, there is a need for domestic violence for women's refuge charities, there is a need for homelessness for shelter etc etc. None of these things will ever stop and so the charities and their fundraising efforts will still continue. Whilst there are humans in the world, there will be conflict and soldiers will continue to get injured and those who do are owed a debt of gratitude.

[Beso]

I don't know what you're saying, Parm. No one wants war less than a soldier.

What I'm saying is, if there is no more war there will be no more injured soldiers, therefore there will be no contestants to take part.

So in order for them to continue we need some form of conflict going on that will continue to injure soldiers.

So to promote future events, is promoting so ething that requires violence for it to be able to continue.

I dont know of anything else that is promoted which requires acts of violence for it to be around in the future.:shrug:


I'm all for the games, and 100 percent back the participants.

[user104658]

What I'm saying is, if there is no more war there will be no more injured soldiers, therefore there will be no contestants to take part.

So in order for them to continue we need some form of conflict going on that will continue to injure soldiers.

So to promote future events, is promoting so ething that requires violence for it to be able to continue.

I dont know of anything else that is promoted which requires acts of violence for it to be around in the future.:shrug:


I'm all for the games, and 100 percent back the participants.


I don't quite understand your logic Parmy. Yes, soldiers need to be injured in conflicts for the Invictus Games to exist... but the Invictus Games is the byproduct here, not the goal? I don't think we're going to achieve world peace and then some exec from Invictus is going to hatch a supervillain plot to start a new war in the Middle East cackling "The Invictus Games must go on!!" ...

If war ends, and there are no longer injured soldiers, then the games will end, and everyone will say "Whew how great that we don't have enough injured soldiers to continue the games".

Although obviously war is not going to end. Though tbh it may still happen as modern armies ARE going to become increasingly mechanised and human soldiers will be in the direct line of fire less and less.

Anyway, the point remains - no one is promoting war in some attempt to keep the Invictus Games alive... if they can't continue, they can't continue, but that's not the current situation? :shrug:.

Like I can see where your logic is coming from but I think it's a bit backwards and has resulted in a concern that's not really a concern.

Are you more saying that it seems like "celebrating conflict"? Is it a moral stance?

[Livia]

What I'm saying is, if there is no more war there will be no more injured soldiers, therefore there will be no contestants to take part.

So in order for them to continue we need some form of conflict going on that will continue to injure soldiers.

So to promote future events, is promoting so ething that requires violence for it to be able to continue.

I dont know of anything else that is promoted which requires acts of violence for it to be around in the future.:shrug:


I'm all for the games, and 100 percent back the participants.


I don't get you on this one.

[Beso]

Yes, it is a moral stance.

[Beso]

I don't get you on this one.

Thats not a problem, just as long as you dont think I'm being disrespectful to the injured soldiers that's good enough for me.