Hmm, what would you do if England was at civil war, you didn't want to fight and you wanted to escape it? Go to Ireland, Scotland, France or aim for America? This is what a lot of people feel dubious about, especially in the east of Europe which is not as rich as western countries.
Personally? The obvious choice for me would be Greece as I've lived there before and I've got personal and family connections there. For other people where I'm from (northern former mill town) I expect it would depend on their backgrounds. Ireland might make sense for people from Irish families. Pakistan might make sense for a lot more people. Maybe Poland or the Ukraine for people whose families came here as refugees during and after the war, though I'm not sure how much connection the younger ones would really have now. Otherwise I expect it would depend on whatever connections people had. There are plenty of people with family or friends in America, Australia, Canada or the Costa del Sol. There's no obvious logic in choosing the country next door unless you're being prevented from flying (Syrians aren't flying to the EU because carrier liability means they're not being allowed to board the planes).
If you are young and able, why don't you fight for your country?
It's a civil war. What does it mean to be fighting for your country? In the Syrian context does that mean fighting for Assad? for an Islamist militia? for IS? I could see why people may choose to fight with a secular FSA militia or with the YPG. I could also see why they may choose not to. In the case of Aylan Kurdi's father I guess he chose to act in what he believed were the best interests of family by taking them to Europe. Now they're gone he has said he will stay in Kobani and fight IS. Both choices are understandable.
Why don't you go to the first place that is not at war?
Because you might face years living in a refugee camp, without any prospects of being able to work legally?
Why can't you appreciate that you are now safe, why demand more and go for the countries with the best welfare? Why throw away given food and water?
That's kind of assuming that the food is there and that they'd be allowed to stay in the longer term anyway. Consider the Turkish talk of creating a 'safe zone' for refugees within Syria, which suggests they're considering moving them out of Turkey. As for the idea of a safe zone in a civil war, just think about Srebenica.
I think you can easily imagine someone, working 2 shifts for an equivalent of 1/3 of UK wages, thinking this way. I think your views depend highly on your personal situation you are in.
In addition, Poland took a lot of Ukrainian refugees (300 000) who were issued work permits and immediately started work. They don't want welfare, they integrated really quickly and they don't demand anything. There is a lot of contrast between those two waves of imigration and that influences peoples views further.
Why would Syrians be less likely to want to work than Ukrainians? The ones crossing to Greece at the moment tend to be from the educated middle classes. To me they actually look a lot like the young educated Greeks who are leaving for England or Germany because they can't find work in Greece. So far I'm fairly sure more Greek economic migrants than Syrian refugees have made the move to Northern Europe. This is an issue for Greece as it's losing a whole generation of young talented people but I've never seen any suggestion it's a problem for the countries they're going to. If Syrians refugees are allowed to work why should they pose any more of a problem?
Topic: I need to see the big picture.