[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.

[Parmy]

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.

[AnnieK]

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

[Parmy]

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.

[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.

[Livia]

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

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

[Parmy]

Yes, it is a moral stance.