Is Britain's sea border its biggest asset during this refugee crisis?

We? I never did such a thing, and I'll assume you didn't either. And yet it's ordinary folk, not the politicians, who have to live among the refugees.

Germany are not taking in 160,000,000 are they?? Thats the number of people they would need to match our population density...
We also have a considerably higher birthrate than Germany 12.2 / 1000 to 8.4 / 1000

I am saying we as in our government but if you actually want to be serious the only people that can influence what our government does when it comes to it's foreign policy decisions is it's own population so In a way we do have some moral fault in this crisis.

How on Earth did you get to that calculation?

Those actions weren't put to vote, and they were carried out by both Labour and Tory parties. So choosing a different government didn't make a difference.

Therefore, we have no fault.

Picked the wrong stat, Germany would need to take 67,000,000 to match England.

The number of civilians who died as a result of the war is in the hundreds of thousands.

http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians

I am going to be completely candid on this matter. With regards to Iraq, our country along with the US bombed and killed nearly a million people, leaving several more million in starvation and thus creating the circumstances in which ISIS emerged. We invaded Afghanistan killing hundreds of thousands of people, now it has the third largest number of refugees fleeing the country. We bombed Libya creating the largest uncontrolled border crossing from North Africa to Europe and have left that country devastated with no rule of law. And you're still contemplating whether we should even take in refugees we created?!

Right..... but how on Earth this you come this new calculation?

I didn't ask how many died in the war, I asked how many civilians did Britain kill?

Well apparently we live in a democracy so actions carried out by elected party members are influenced by the population.

How is that relevant? When our country as-well as the USA leads an invasion of another country by acting as the aggressors, then the number of civilians deaths killed as a result of the invasion is our responsibility and that's basic international law never mine morality.

You said we killed hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Where is your source for Britain killing hundreds of thousands of civilians?

England 53,000,000 ppl - 413km/2 - Land mass 130,279km/2
Germany 81,000,000 ppl 226km/2 - Land mass 357,021km/2

Oh cmon you are aware that even political parties get divided over certain issues, nevermind the 30%-45% of the population that voted them which could have been due many differentiating reasons

Rubbish! Get a grip will you, where are you pulling these figures from, fairy land? I'd like a credible source in you next post. No, newspapers and media outlets don't count.

The US invaded Afgan in response for the 9/11 attacks against it, pretty justified actions. A lot of people seem to forget that. They went to destroy the Taliban and AQ, which was harboured by the Taliban, then the...well... "government" of Afgan.

We created a no fly zone over Libya, to stop Gadaffi from bombing his own people, which he had started to do when they revolted against him in 2011. We also used guided missiles to destroy a few artilley/AA/command emplacements. This was even requested by it's own UN delegation!

Im not sure what your idea of 'bombing' is but this isn't World War 2.....bombs are droped from fast, small payload fighter bombers and are laser guided onto targets. Cruise missiles also fly off and self destruct if they fail to find their target.

The arab spring would have happened and been supressed more violently without our intervention.

Just to finish knocking your argument on the head, Syria and Eritrea has the highest concentration of refugees and we've had nothing to do with them.

The distribution of refugees is based on the UK not just England so your figures are inaccurate. Furthermore going back to the actual topic Germany has taken 20 times the number of Syrian refugees than the UK and if you want to be really serious as I said before, take a look at Lebanon and the near 2 million refugees they have taken in.

Yes and the vast majority will congregate in England's cities. Won't be in the rural wealthy constituencies or in the rolling welsh hills. Of course back on topic none of this matters because Fuhrer Merkel is calling the shots

Yes its terrible for Lebanon

To avoid getting in a long correspondence, I told you, take a look at the Lancet medical journal regarding the number of civilians casualties in Iraq as a result of the US invasion.