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.

:crazy:

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

So shouldn't be promoted.

Like fags on the side of grand prix cars.

Sure

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

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

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:

It was ten years ago now, Nicky. I'm happily married to someone else now.

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

Not what i'm saying at all..

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

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

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

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

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.

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?

I don't get you on this one.

Yes, it is a moral stance.

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.