Your post you mean? Yes I know.

You appear to have neglected to bold the very next 'of course I'm being facetious' line. My point as stated is that we are not weighing up like for like improvements to peoples lives when we are taking in people living in refugee camps in war torn areas.

It was also clearly a little dig at the likes of people who not only inflate the importance of 'not' taking in refugees but are also keen to diminish them.

Edited by oldcodger (06 Sep 2015 12.20pm)

Agreed Kermit - This is the crux of the whole problem

"It feels much better than it ever did, much more sensitive." John Wayne Bobbit

Again, misrepresentation.

Go back and read Kermit. I've always stated agreement upon a stated number of asylum, agreed by our own government.

I only want those that can be vouched for.....You can take the rest into Scotland.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

I think we choose as a nation not to house our own. No government has made even a vague effort to combat housing prices in the UK, except as a means of stimulating the 'housing market' ever upwards

The UK has taken in around 5500 refugees from Syria, of which around 5000 were already here working, studying or otherwise visiting the UK when the civil war broke out.

We as a nation have the capacity to take more than 5500 people, if we respond accordingly to controlling other areas of immigration, accordingly.

I'm surprised that the right don't see this as a means of manipulating the EU working migrant laws, which contribute almost all of UK's immigration and non-EU migration.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

For the west, and security, the Assad regime probably represent the best outcome. The Free Syrian Army is propped up by a number of Islamist Militias that whilst not IS or Al-Qaeda aren't likely to end up being friendly to the west.

As for Putin, if not him, another would have done the same. If Putin was against Syrian support, he'd likely 'be offed' and replaced by a more compliant puppet.

The IS faction in Syria has always been one of the major players in this conflict, simply because it was supplied and supported from the infrastructure in place as part of the Sunni insurgency, with support from the 'usual suspects'.

And of course if the Assad military hadn't been equipped by Russia, then the Free Syrian army wouldn't have been very well equipped either, as they formed out of Syrian Military units.

The concern for the West, remains IS and its allied factions. The Kurdish areas will likely annex with the Iraq-Kurdish zones, but the Assad regime isn't going to accept the areas of the Free Syrian Army being independent, it might however make peace with the loss of the IS regions.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Lybia

On 19 March 2011, a multi-state coalition began a military intervention in Libya to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. The United Nations Intent and Voting was to have "an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute crimes against humanity".

From the beginning of the intervention, the initial coalition of Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Qatar, Spain, UK and US all had a part in air strikes. So hardly just the UK, it was a NATO lead Operation.

As was Iraq and Afghanistan.

Get your facts straight. By the way when was the last time Ireland sent in troops to help anyone ?

"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"