Why does the West insist on acting like the world's police?

Over the past quarter of a century, Western powers have increasingly taken on the role of being the world's police - either through political pressure and threats of possible military action or, in some cases, direct action that has resulted in the overthrow of national governments.

But why? What makes the USA and the UK feel they have a moral duty to interfere in the internal machinations of other countries? Why is it that we think our political systems and way of life are right, while those employed by other nations are wrong?

The other issue is the rather selective way that the USA/UK chooses the nations it feels necessary to interfere with.

The invasion of Afghanistan was a knee-jerk reaction to the 9/11 atrocities in New York and Washington D.C. It was based on "intelligence" that Osama bin Laden was hiding out in the mountains there - he wasn't. And the invasion, and ensuing war, involved the overthrow of a sovereign government just because "we" wanted to, as far as I can see.

Yes, there was much to dislike about the Taliban regime, but let's not forget that 20 years earlier, as the Mujahideen, they had been allies of the West, and freedom fighters standing up to Soviet imperialism. They had the same unpalatable beliefs, so what had changed?

The reasons, and legality, of why the USA/UK invaded Iraq and overthrew Saddam Hussein has been debated long and hard. Clearly, the excuse that he had Weapons of Mass Destruction that could be fired within 45 minutes was untrue and it would be possible to debate for weeks whether this was a misunderstanding or deliberate, but comments from Tony Blair, British PM at the time of the Iraq invasion, has suggested that regime change was at the heart of his reasons for taking action.

Again, it is undeniable that Saddam was an evil and oppressive dictator who made the lives if many of citizens a living hell. But what right did the USA/UK have to interfere in the internal politics of a sovereign nation?

Why did we invade Iraq, for instance, when there are so many other evil and oppressive regimes around the world including Zimbabwe, North Korea, China and any number of the Arabian nations.

Sure, it's very easy to say that the Iraq war (BOTH Iraq wars) was really about oil. Even if that was the case, the question still has to be, does it justify our involvement in a war that has killed tens of thousands of civilians?

So what should we do? Just sit back and let evil dictators do whatever they want?

During the 1930s and 1940s the rest of the world did nothing about the concentration and death camps that the Nazis had built, and where they were sending Jews. There was as much, if not more, evidence for these camps as there was for WMDs in Iraq but the USA/UK did nothing to stop the mass killing of Jews by the Nazis. Instead, when war was finally declared, it was to defend a treaty protecting the sovereignty of Poland. Where were the morals of the West?

I think the line has to be drawn when dictators and oppressive regimes are harming their people. Sure, we might not like a political system, we might not agree with the lack of freedoms that women or homosexuals have. We might disagree with rigged elections and want democracy to happen in other countries. But those things aren't sufficient for military intervention.

Military intervention must only be used when a regime is physically harming or killing its citizens - and such intervention should be truly international and not the preserve if one it two nations imposing their will in others.

I guess I see an international force as being more of an International Rescue group than a traditional army.

Similarly, all international arms sales must be made illegal or, if, say, a Middle Eastern dictator uses British weapons against its people then Britain stands just as guilty.

So, the West should have stepped into Syria months ago, they should have taken action against Mugabe's Zimbabwe, and they should do whatever is needed to protect human life whenever there is suffering. But political change must be made by education, empowerment, pressure, campaigning and the will of the people - not because we disagree with it.

COMMENT: Cutting diplomatic links with Iran

Things have been hitting-up with regard to the West's relationship with Iran (well, now that Iraq and Libya are "solved", Obama needs a new war to help his election campaign). The West keep saying that Iran shouldn't be developing nuclear weapons while Iran point out the hypocrisy of the nuclear powers telling them they can't join the gang!

Earlier this week, the British Embassy in Tehran was attacked and taken over. The UK government's response was to withdraw all from the embassy and order all Iranian diplomats out of London. Diplomatic links are cut.

At a time of trouble and disagreement isn't that the worst and most idiotic thing to do? When there is disagreement that is the time when diplomats should be doing their job: talking, negotiating, working out a peace, keeping the peace.

Cutting diplomatic ties is like taking your ball home and ending the game. Worse, it's more akin to preparing for war. And what will this war achieve? Nothing.

Sure, there will be Americans who see it as an heroic struggle against the Iranians and, I'm sure, it will bolster Obama's presidency (and his lack of substance continues to be exposed - he, more than anyone, needs another war if he is to win a second term in the White House).

Cameron, the British PM, probably hopes it will be his Falklands - Thatcher, deeply unpopular after cuts, riots and rising unemployment sent forces to re-capture a few bits of rock we'd been trying to get rid of for decades in the early '80s and, therefore, romped to a second election victory in 1983. And, of course, another big war would be just what Cameron's mates in the Arms industry want (he's recently been campaigning to end the treaty that banned cluster bombs).

Also, Cameron has been sidelined in Europe and has lost a platform where he might have been able to be seen as statesmanlike. He wants, very much as Blair did with GWB, to radiate in the glow that is emanating from Obama. Obama is, now, one of his only international friends left.

After the "dodgy dossier" and the lack of WMD in Iraq, should we take Iran's claims, and the West's concerns, with a pinch of salt?

So, what if Iran IS on the verge of having nuclear weapons? What if they actually already have them? Should I bother buying any Christmas presents or will the world have come to an end in the next few weeks?

Hopefully, that's unlikely, but, and there is no doubt, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President is both unstable and unpredictable. Is that the sort of man who should be let loose like this?

Cutting diplomatic links is a truly idiotic thing to do with any nation - but particularly any nation that could be considered a "rogue state". It is political posturing on a level to which the likes of the unions normally only ever sink. It is dangerous and Cameron is gambling on what might happen next.

Grown-ups discuss their problems. Grown-ups negotiate and compromise. This week Cameron, yet again, has shown himself to be a schoolboy in short trousers when it comes to the world stage.