Serious Question - Invictus Games

[DTCwordfan]

Don't get me wrong - it's brilliant as a concept to allow those injured to aim for a short-mid term goal and all that this brings in terms of their benefits and rehabilitation.

However, every year, isn't there a risk of burn-out from a general public/brand interest?

Also, our involvement in war situations has abated quite considerably - and yes, I know they have others involved. This 'call,' for a better word, could benefit from a longer period? Views?

What do you think? - and what should be the interval between the Games - two or four years (I do favour two years)....

It will be interesting to canvas the views of the ex-military on here (Falklands.Afghanistan/Iraq/Serbia campaigns).......

I thought about putting this in News or Sports but it is more than that - and current....so hence in CB.

And please keep it civil.

[bednobs]

TBH i dont think the general public are particularly interested in the invictus games. There are relatively few participants and if it's a short/mid term goal for participants, a two or four year cycle does not compute

[retrocop]

Well DTC
Wars and campaigns may be won and forgotten but the pain for those who took part still lingers on. Last week ,I believe,5 veterans died under tragic services within 6 days of each other. If the Invictus Games can jog peoples memories to donate for the rehabilitation of these heroes and allow them to be normal then it gets my vote.
The way I see it the RBL are a worthy cause but too many think that it is all for those who died or injured in the 1st W.W. hence the Flanders Field poppy emblem.
Invictus brings us closer to modern warfare and grief.

[retrocop]

please read 'circumstances' instead of services.

[retrocop]

Further to above I should of mentioned the British soldiers, who died were veterans of the Gulf and Iraqi wars.

[DTCwordfan]

fair enough, retro....any other views?

[DTCwordfan]

and bednobs, sorry there, missed you....