Italy counts up to 900 migrants dead and launches rescues of two more boats

[Grinning_Colossus]

If the USA had collapsed into anarchy in the 1780s, would it have been France's fault?

[Neil]

If the USA had collapsed into anarchy in the 1780s, would it have been France's fault?

To some degree.  After all, the French did do a lot of work in removing the civilized government of the American colonies and replacing it with a lynch mob.

[Admiral Yi]

If the USA had collapsed into anarchy in the 1780s, would it have been France's fault?

I would say no.  The rule doesn't come into effect until WWI at the earliest and Vietnam at the latest.

[Caliga]

I'm not so sure.  I think the US deserves at least some of the blame.  After all, they didn't help Britain recolonize Africa, and that's the only way that any of this could have been avoided.

Maybe, but didn't the British WANT to dissolve their colonial empire?

[Neil]

I'm not so sure.  I think the US deserves at least some of the blame.  After all, they didn't help Britain recolonize Africa, and that's the only way that any of this could have been avoided.

Maybe, but didn't the British WANT to dissolve their colonial empire?

Indeed.  And it shouldn't have been allowed.  The lands of Africa and Asia are like pets:  When you take them in, they become your responsibility.  You can't just toss them out because you're bored of them.

[Josquius]

Random thoughts I had thinking about this yesterday-
We really need a good solid world agreement between free and democratic countries to share the burden of refugees about.
Everyone takes some percentage based on their population and what they can handle. With countries of course being free to volunteer to take more above their quota.
The whole thing is also funded based on some gdp level above which you pay subsidies and below which you receive them.
That would help cut out some of the economic migrants and leave just the genuine refugees if there's the risk of them being allocated to Botswana or India rather than a cushy place in Europe.
(yeah yeah, they'll still try anyway.)

Well UKIP said migrants would be less likely to attempt this if the UK was to leave the EU.

I live in Switzerland. This place is swarming with African migrants. UKIP aren't just mistaken in their policies, they're utterly wrong on all the assumptions they base them on.

[grumbler]

Countries should have a quota, but should be able to pay other countries to take their quota (the original country still being responsible for the cost of supporting the refugees).  Then, you won't see refugees ending up in countries with the highest welfare benefits, as opposed to the greatest number of jobs.

[Norgy]

The main issue is that the border states, which also are the poorest, are left with all the work and the refugees. Norway's a Schengen treaty member, yet do little to support the operations in the Med, like Triton and Mare Nostrum before that.

[The Brain]

I will not send European boys to do something that African boys should be doing for themselves.

[Caliga]

African boys

Racidistic 

[Ancient Demon]

Turning the boats around doesn't work, because they'll simply turn around again as soon as the navy isn't looking.  In the 80s and 90s, HK had to deal with tons of Vietnamese boat people.  What finally worked was to send them back after they had landed.

Yes, stopping this sort of thing is rather easy technically, but the political will for that isn't there in modern Europe, at least not yet.

[Neil]

Random thoughts I had thinking about this yesterday-
We really need a good solid world agreement between free and democratic countries to share the burden of refugees about.
Everyone takes some percentage based on their population and what they can handle. With countries of course being free to volunteer to take more above their quota.
The whole thing is also funded based on some gdp level above which you pay subsidies and below which you receive them.
That would help cut out some of the economic migrants and leave just the genuine refugees if there's the risk of them being allocated to Botswana or India rather than a cushy place in Europe.
(yeah yeah, they'll still try anyway.)

Wouldn't it make more sense to just eliminate the problem altogether by not allowing any refugees, anywhere?

[Iormlund]

Turning the boats around doesn't work, because they'll simply turn around again as soon as the navy isn't looking.  In the 80s and 90s, HK had to deal with tons of Vietnamese boat people.  What finally worked was to send them back after they had landed.

Yes, stopping this sort of thing is rather easy technically, but the political will for that isn't there in modern Europe, at least not yet.

We've been trying to send them back home for aeons. That's why nobody crosses with papers.

The only thing that keeps smugglers ashore is bribing North African rulers, and rarely for long.

[Tonitrus]

The only way to win is not to play?

Even that doesn't work, both in Libya and Syria, there was too often the "Why isn't freedom-loving America helping us rebels?!" to lay on the giant guilt trip...and then those few, freedom-loving rebels get ROFL-stomped by the Islamists.

[Martim Silva]

Well, in line with the plan by the Europan Commission, Spain and Italy submitted to the UN a proposal that envisages the sinking of the ships on the Lybian ports, before they can set sail for Italy.

http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2015/04/21/actualidad/1429646930_191803.html

The idea seems good. Europe cannot allow a mass landing in Sicily while we are trying to stop the Russians in the Ukraine.

But I would hardly trust the Italians to such a task. Better send in the Luftwaffe. Maybe the Italian Air Force can perform an auxiliary role (and perhaps some French planes can be scrounged to help?)

That handled, we can go back to pressing affairs: quashing the resistance in Greece before they can call upon the Russian or American (?) 'aid' they 'claim' they can get.