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

Even if we take the 100,000 death count. I think that doesn't change my argument.

What was you original point exactly? That we have a moral obligation to help people since we bombed their country?

Are we talking specifically iraq? Most refugees are from Syria and Eritrea.

We have a moral obligation to people because they are fellow humans, beyond that we don't 'owe' them anything. Our ancestors worked hard to build our country, resist corruption, greed and promote all sorts of positive things.

You make out that we went over and capet bombed residential areas and infrastructure or somthing.

The baseline is, if you accept refugees, more will come, more will attempt to cross the med and more will drown or die being trafficed. It's also not a sustainable solution in the long term.

How many do we take until our public services are under too much strain? And how do we take some but not others if there is a limit?

Not just Iraq. But also Afghanistan which we bombed and killed thousands of civilians and they are the third largest source of refugees fleeing. I also mentioned Libya which we helped to create the circumstances in which the country became devastated without rule of law and also created the largest uncontrolled border crossing from North Africa to Europe. The same crossing in which these refugees are drowning.

Not just Iraq. But also Afghanistan which we bombed and killed thousands of civilians and they are the third largest source of refugees fleeing. I also mentioned Libya which we helped to create the circumstances in which the country became devastated without rule of law and also created the largest uncontrolled border crossing from North Africa to Europe. The same crossing in which these refugees are drowning.

We have a moral obligation to take in refugees that we helped to create. If you don't think we do then that is your moral standards. I cant help that.

Is it me or does some people here thinks that every refugee would go on benefits as soon as they arrive in the UK?

Great, now try and pass legislation which stops the NHS caring for fat people and see what happens Einstein

JSA is F ALL of the bill, its housing, child support, NHS, Schooling which is constantly being overlooked by the sheltered and ignorant

Any British person's moral standards ought to direct them toward putting their country first. Of course we shouldn't have invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course we shouldn't have removed Qadaffi and allowed Libya to crumble to dust. Of course we shouldn't be destabilising the al-Assad regime in Syria.

But those things have already happened, and so the question now ought to be - can we take these refugees without harming ourselves? If we can, we should - if we can't, we need to shut up the gate and keep them out by any means necessary.

I suppose you'll say we put the sea there for them to drown in next.....

Libya's civil war started after Tunisia and Egypt, we had jack all to do with them. We crated a NFZ over Libya, been through this. Syria followed on with the formation of the FSA, again another civil war.

Gadaffi was bombing his own citizens, because they'd had enough of him being in power for 42 years and having their relatives taken in the night, not to be seen again.

Go and read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Civil_War_%282011%29

Literally, I don't get where you think the EU is responsible for every problem in every country you list. Their own populations decided to overthrow their governments. We only interviened in Libya to prevent Gadaffi from bombing his own people, which he had started to do. His military units were even sniping non-combatents in the street. (We've seen this before in during the Siege of Sarajevo in 1992 and later in Ukraine with the Berkut in 2014)

Gadaffi's own generals and even fighter pilots ordered to bomb civil (or rebel) targets defected and flew thier jets to Malta. Their own UN delegation ASKED the UN for a NFZ and help.

Will you stop saying we bombed civilians.....we certainly did not. We bombed the Taliban and the US droped inordinate amounts of ordinance in remote mountain area in order to try and get rid of AQ. Bombs arn't dropped blind or dumb! Nor are they dropped on ligitimate targets if civilians are nearby. Gadaffi moved his tanks into civilian residential areas to take advantage of this fact.

There you go:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/11/04/uk-immigration-_n_4212431.html

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c49043a8-6447-11e4-b219-00144feabdc0.html

Yeah our country and others intervened by bombing the country to rubble and instigating no rule of law. There's no doubt the country is in worse straits then it every has been before, not to mention uncontrolled border crossings which has allowed this crisis to happen. Yeah, we played a major role in this.
I am sorry but if you are going to invade another country by bombing it to rubble to make things worse, then you don't have any moral or legal obligation to do so.
It gives you zero justification to bomb a civilian area just because tanks were purposely moved there.

You're not reading what i've written.

Instead you're foaming at the mouth repeating the same line you seem to have taken, despite conjecture with various historical / military infomation.

That's fine. I don't mind people who use rhetoric such as 'foaming at the mouth' to reinforce their arguments.

As I explained it's a moral argument. There is no right or wrong on that basis. If you think it's right to bomb Iraq, right to bomb Libya and right to bomb Afghanistan to make matters far worse and devastating for the people of those countries then that's your moral standards. I personally think we should pay attention to our crimes and stop committing them.

West intervenes in Libya:

It's our fault there are problems there!

West doesn't interfere in Syria:

It's our fault there's chaos there!

Such a pitifully simplistic view of foreign policy

Yeah, I get the impression you don't have a clue whats going on or any idea how modern warfare is conducted. No, with you its just "OMG, nasty west, bombing bad...how terrible!"

It's a moral argument huh? ok here's one, do you let Assad drop barrel bombs indescriminately in cities or do you form a no fly zone over it and bomb his artillery units?

Here's a video of Syria's airforce in action for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApZdvz_n4ro

I think if you are going to bomb another country and kill thousands of civilians as we have done so in Iraq and Afghanistan, as a consequence making matters far worse, then you have no right to do so. The same goes for Syria. We want to bomb the country just like we did with Iraq and so on to instigate no rule of law allowing extremist groups such as ISIS to grow just like it did in Iraq as we created the circumstances in which isis came about. And who suffers from our intervention???? The people of those countries.

You argue that I know nothing about modern warfare. Well lets take a look at the facts. Is Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya a better place then if was after our intervention?