Belly, you propose that the UN get its act together and stop war, even if it's necessary to go to war to do this. One hundred years ago we had 'a war to end all wars'. It didn't work then, and it won't work now.
In fact what we are seeing now, perpetual war in the Middle East and millions of refugees moving into Europe, is the continuing aftermath of WW1, the break-up of the Ottoman Empire, the battles in the Middle East, and the subsequent imposition by Europe of artificial new countries and regimes there. We can't turn back time, but maybe we should try to avoid repeating past strategies that didn't work and often made things worse. Going to war to end war doesn't work, it just tends to spawn more wars.

Foxy,

" We can only hope that the same will happen at the
end of this conflict."

I, for one, sincerely hope that it will not happen, at least for those refugees who hold to a political system disguised (not very well) as a religion and that was/is designed to conquer the world and force itself upon us all.

Hi BELLY...

You're right. Trying to feed, house and care for the massive influx of refugees, that've flooded many European countries, as they've done. Essentially from the African Continent, needs to be halted at the source.

That is to say, trying to prevent or limit civil insurrection or civil war actually starting in the first instance. To me with virtually no military knowledge of where precisely these skirmishes have their origins?

From what I've read, it usually starts with a significant criminal component attached to it, rather than a nationalistic element. I really don't know, but to provide a UN policing force in sufficiently numbers large enough too prevent these warring countries from fighting each other. And interdict these self-styled warlords out of existence, thus preventing them from plundering their already poor nations' - sounds to me to be a huge economic imperative, that will need to be financed by the European Union?

Furthermore many of these rebels and revolutionaries possess ulterior motives, quite different to what the world or us really know or understand - especially in the realm of trafficking; in weapons, narcotics, intelligence, and/or personnel willing to fight in order to feed their drug needs.

Even some with this unfathomable psychiatric need, to be allowed to kill with impunity. Sadly when you're born with an AK-47 in your hand, it's more important for you to maintain the weapon, then for them to learn to read and write.

Many of these young people 8-15 years, become killers without motive. Therefore they have this insatiable lust for killing. It's my humble belief, there 'may be' some of these Black Africans, we've already allowed into our country as refugees, may've had this sort of upbringing, and need to be watched closely?

Agree with you BELLY, this is an awful catastrophe in human terms, with no easy solution attached to it

Foxy it will not happen.
The left can not go on forever branding it racism, that path is blindness
The right can not go on forever using hate and open racism to try solving the problem
Even here in this country the PC crowd names a great Australian Dick Smith racist, for warning us this country cannot grow forever
Back to post ww2,20 million people had died, what is now the EU was partly destroyed,jobs for refugees/migrants existed, not now, not in the numbers they come now,importing poverty is not the answer
The EU WILL block refugees,they must,any plan for one world one people will not work if we bankrupt the west.
A middle path exists,help the third world grow, make aid free of corruption, make it work,or confront a right that one day will control the EU and find harsher ways to solve the issue

The Lowy Institute writes that there are reasons
why Australia should continue to engage with
Global Compacts on refugees... The perceived success
of "Operation Sovereign Borders" is unsustainable;
turnbacks may not be possible should the volume of boat
arrivals increase; there are limits to the capacity of
Papua New Guinea and Nauru to accommodate asylum seekers;
legal challenges to the policy are likely to continue;
and its financial costs are high ...

The following link explains further:

http://lowyinstitute.org/publications/global-compact-refugees-role-australia

While the subject is the EU, it could be this country, may well be in the near future.
If I had the power, everyone we hold in offshore detention, if found to be safe and a true refugee, not an economic one, would be living here now
Surely with 20 percent of yet another EU country voting far right we can see a trend?
A middle path just must be found.
By the way Sydney grew with 85.000 new comers last year.
Back to the EU, it is clear countries are increasingly voting right, on this issue.
Surely a two gallon bucket can not hold three gallons.
And if 100 people compete for 60 jobs lower wages and working conditions are the out come?
Are we afraid to confront the need for less war more aid but less migration/refugee flows?