Drones replace patrol ships on Mediterranean

I agree with you that many countries had flawed leadership to begin with it's not really the case with many others(i.e much of the middle east). Removing the government of another country by military force and destroying the social and physical infrastructure is the direct reason for the current situation. Arming various extremist groups does not help either. As we know Al-Qaeda was armed and trained by the U.S in the first place.

Why did US invade Iraq? We know it's for the oil now but at least it should have had the decency to provide security/safety transition to a democracy in exchange for their resources. Not to mention that US vets their leaders/administration. They are not infants but have little choice in the face of the world's most powerful country/countries.

Unfortunately some politicians are harming the way we feel about each other for the sake of their own game.

The pattern is: There is a dictator that is oppressing his people, we feel bad about it and want them to be able to have democracy. We overthrow the dictator, and then things get complicated and we walk away, leaving the place in civil war and ruin.

Often the problem is that the only reason it's a country at all is that some guy in London drew a line on a map a couple of hundred years ago, and the borders do not reflect ethnic or religious loyalties. In this post colonial situation, often the only thing holding the country together was the violence of the dictator. We then swoop in with fighter jets and maybe even ground troops, maybe stick around a while to run a few elections, but generally without the understanding of what's left of the power structure in the country.

This is precisely what happened in Libya, and after Iraq and Afghanistan it's shameful that we just continue to do the same thing. Bomb Gaddafi and let the chips fall where they may, which turns out to be years long civil war.

If you want to look for a relatively successful model of U.S. intervention, it's what we did in Yugoslavia. Just recognize that the country doesn't have enough holding it together to be a functioning democracy, break it up along ethnic lines, institute democracy in the statelets, and then let them all join the EU when they're ready.

I think most of us agree that migrants traveling long and dangerous distances to Europe don't have much to loose back home. Now the question is if their lives are not in danger anymore why should Europe host them and pay them a better life ? Is this supposed to be a solution to world's poverty? As we've seen if support is provided or better said lack of counter-measures you may experience a continuous stream of migrants(i.e millions). Even if we want, we can't welcome everybody, I fear we can't coup even with the people who really need help, let alone the economic migrants.

On the other side there is also the cultural issue. Millions of people change the landscape for sure and the natives don't want to compete with migrants(why would they?). UK is leaving EU because of european "migrants" so it's not something to ignore.

Which is why they want to leave, but has nothing to do with the point that there are many other places for them to go.

> They just don’t complain as much as some of our politicians do to get voted.

Because they don't have redistributive social assistance systems based on assumptions about what proportion of the population are net recipients that accepting large amounts of indigent immigration would violate.

A poor and rural country can accept almost arbitrarily large numbers of refugees because they're also a labor force, so you give them jobs building housing and growing food and they support themselves.

That doesn't work in urbanized countries because there isn't any cheap land available and in a lot of places there is already an oversupply of unskilled labor, so in that environment they can't support their own weight and it limits the number you can accept.

Now of course there was a plan about distributing some migrants BUT let me remind you that those quota NEVER achieved, most european countries never received the amount of refugees they were "obligated" to.

The distribution plan wasn't because refugees gathered for example here in Greece and they wanted to stay here, not at all, most of them wanted to leave the country. It was only a passage for them to other countries. Many people had family waiting for them. What happened? Walls were raised. Borders were closed and Greece almost kicked out of schengen (informally it was suspended). Obviously the government was forced to accept the EU plan about keeping the migrants in concentration camps and distribute some people around the europe (that again never really happened other than a small extend). Later on the EU-Turkey deal happened.

Nowdays that xenophobic, anti-immigration feelings are in rise you can hear that plain and simple even by moderate politicians that when syrian war is over refugees are out of here.

In other words, there never was an open borders and integration policy that failed. It is the same fascist policy by EU that getting people killed or rot in prison.

Anyway, i'm mostly referring to the people of the left when i'm saying that they have nothing to gain out of this reactionary silence about the massive human rights violations in EU.

It's obvious that the parties chose by the majority are drowning people in Mediterranean sea.