[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]

Originally Posted by Livia

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]

Originally Posted by parmnion

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]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

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]

Originally Posted by parmnion

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]

Originally Posted by Livia

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.


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

[user104658]

Originally Posted by parmnion

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.


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? .

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]

Originally Posted by parmnion

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.


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]

Originally Posted by Livia

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.