To think, in the final analysis, moving millions of people around the globe is not the optimal answer.

[StrawberryTeaLeaf]

We should be better by now at tackling the reasons people flee en masse? As a world-wide civilization. We've had enough practice at war and famine and genocide.

I'm just perusing the articles and the debates and the op-eds and the -bloody irritating-- memes again this morning and thinking there are just more refugees than there should be because there just shouldn't be the NEED for millions of people to move at once.

If we could just do better , globally, at tackling the root causes of mass migration (particularly emergency mass migration) so many of the knock-on problems would never crop up.

Err no obviously in the ideal world extremists would not try to build an authoritarian state and kill those who get in their way. Do you fancy flying over and explaining this to ISIL?

Of course I don't fancy explaining it to the IS barbarians. But a) Refugees fleeing that brutal lunacy are only the most recent wave of displaced people and b) IS need tackling (not taking to, not accommodating), they are on an uncompromising expansionist mission that makes the Nazi project look amateurish.

In fact you illustrate my point rather well - how many countries will need to be evacuated in their wake?

Oh fantastic, site's gone mad again

The way you phrased it in the title make me wonder if you mean that some force was actually moving the people around, but then in OP you were talking about a need for people to move.

Should this instead be talked about in terms of freedom to move ? A reduction of global inequality would be needed to avoid mass movement to richer nations.

And if you want someone to do something about the likes of IS, who is that someone, and what do you actually want them to do?

I'm not saying we ARE better, obviously Jello. I'm wondering why we're not.

We were already into the new millenium when the Iraq fiasco was kicked off by the so-called 'sexed-up dossier' containing claims based on a PhD thesis.

Why as a species are we not better at conflict resolution, handling despots, solving big economic problems by now? Not in a philanthropic sense but in the sense that if we don't get a grip on this stuff we WILL waltz into pan-global disaster.

Why do we think moving a large proportion of the planet's population to Europe and N America is an answer?

millennium^

I actually agree with this. But I doubt you'll get much agreement on MN.

I suppose I mean global cooperation on global affairs AuntieStella. Current events all seem so primitive for a supposedly advanced species.

I'm probably being a bit simplistic in my frustration but this IS the age of globalisation so when are the global solutions going to start?

I hope the MN hive-mind doesn't dismiss it goodnight. I know it's a big question but I am seriously wondering if there are reasons.

I think the reasons are ass-covering and financial. ISIS were bankrolled, I think by Russia? Not sure, I don't follow it all. But I think the world should ban together and take them out, not pussy around and let thousands upon thousands of people descend upon one continent that can't support them all. Now they're blowing up major European countries, the few that are willing are hitting back, and still people (like Corbyn) are wringing their hands and wailing.

But any viewpoint like this on MN is generally taken to be "anti-refugee" and "raycist".

And if you want someone to do something about the likes of IS, who is that someone, and what do you actually want them to do?

A UN+?

I am confused as to exactly why UK and USA has been so reactive in recent decades. How true it is that oil interests override other concerns in the ME. Quite how murky SA is etc etc.

Recent events (years not weeks or months) are making it very clear how interconnected all decisions are and so we need a serious rethink don't we?

I know that's been said before but, yet again it is migration tat is dominating the news agenda and so many ordinary people seem to think accepting refugees is good (it is clearly) but are vehemently anti tackling IS at source. I'm just confused by it all and what the end game will be, by what the public imagine the end game will be, and when international foreign policy will finally become more coherent and constructive.

I don't want much

I think Saudi Arabia are the prime suspects re the bankrolling goodnight.

But I think the world should ban together and take them out, not pussy around and let thousands upon thousands of people descend upon one continent that can't support them all. Now they're blowing up major European countries, the few that are willing are hitting back, and still people (like Corbyn) are wringing their hands and wailing.

But, yes, I'm wondering what will happen if we don't go in hard, unpleasant though it is.

Also looking at long intractable problems like Israel/Gaza or the economic problems of much of Africa and the extremism that has sprung from that. We need big answers don't we?

Maybe I'm trying to thing too large thoughts on too little sleep, I don't know It's just everything I've read for days seems to be turning in tiny circles.

(And there's no reason for anyone to think that preventing emergency migration is racist - nobody wants to flee their home in fear)

With respect dismissing people who disagree with you as being part of a 'hive mind' doesn't speak volumes for your ability to see things from different perspectives and reach an answer in negotiations. I think most people would agree that reaching a peaceful resolution through negotiation is preferable to war, famine and displacement of people. But it seems like you think war is the way to achieve this (ie we should be less reactive and more proactive). Well, maybe armed conflict is the answer to Isis, but we can't go in and impose our will on the entire world can we? And I actually disagree that US/UK policy has been reactive - the Iraq war was not reactive (remember preemptive strikes) and that's what's got us into the current mess.

The idea of the UN sounds great but the Balkan situation was a disaster, my friend was part of the peace keeping force and is a haunted man to this day.

It does all boil down to economics and who has signed what treaty with who and historical differences and conflicts and is an unanswerable question sadly.

The only way to solve it would be to reprogram every single person on the planet, or for aliens to invade, which ain't happening ever.

And what do you mean by global cooperation? We cooperate plenty with Turkey - they are bombing the Kurds who are currently the only people fighting Isis on the ground. We cooperated with Syrian rebels who are now members of Isis. We cooperate with SA and so on, who seem to be funding Isis. So what, do we stop 'cooperating' with these entities? Go it alone and achieve our objectives through military might? It's rather more complicated than either cooperation or military action.

With respect dismissing people who disagree with you as being part of a 'hive mind' doesn't speak volumes for your ability to see things from different perspectives and reach an answer in negotiations.

No, that's not what I meant, Goodnight referenced the way a MN 'party line' can sometimes kick in and I was saying that there's no reason it should kick in on this occasion.

I think most people would agree that reaching a peaceful resolution through negotiation is preferable to war, famine and displacement of people.

Well f course. What I was asking was why we aren't better at that at this point in history.

But it seems like you think war is the way to achieve this (ie we should be less reactive and more proactive).

No. Generally I think quite the opposite.

Well, maybe armed conflict is the answer to Isis, but we can't go in and impose our will on the entire world can we?

Exactly IS is a very particular and unique example for which peace techniques are unlikely to work.

And I actually disagree that US/UK policy has been reactive - the Iraq war was not reactive (remember preemptive strikes) and that's what's got us into the current mess.

Really?? Think about the chain of events 9/11 ignited.

"I suppose I mean global cooperation on global affairs AuntieStella. Current events all seem so primitive for a supposedly advanced species."

But what would this actually be?

It's all very well saying co-operate, but co-operate on what (who decides?) and how? What would nations/people actually do ?

Trying to make things better in situ claim land is the cause of most strife over millennia and migration has fuelled most development and civilisation.
But the logistics and scale now are worrying.

Ok, so it seems you're saying that you wish everyone would be nicer to each other and don't understand why they're not?

It's all very well saying co-operate, but co-operate on what (who decides?) and how? What would nations/people actually do ?

That's what I'm asking i suppose. Why do we not have universities and institutes and lavishly funded international foundations actively looking for answers that transcend politics?

Perhaps *steamed is right and it's all about hugely preventative economics.

No jello, I'm not