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.

OPINION: Football finances

Football (soccer) finances in the UK have been a mess for decades now. Clubs overspending on players who receive gargantuan salaries, underwritten by sugar daddies as hobbies, few clubs, in their current state, are sustainable.

Television money, instead of helping the situation, has made things worse with the bulk going to hyper-inflate the greed of players and their agents and most times, it seems, a club gets into financial difficulty there's an outcry and everything is done to keep the club going. New owners, new money (often temporary and with no guarantees) and just a few years until the same problems happen.

Other clubs, like Manchester United, are in so much debt that if they were any other business they would have been buried long ago.

The troubles at Rangers, probably the biggest UK team to go into administration, have, surely, given a number of clubs a wake up call. It is only a matter of time before a major club, or two, ceases to exist.

Yes, it would be sad if some clubs go to the wall but if they are not sustainable then that should happen. A few clubs going out of business would be a good thing for football because it might mean that the rest get their Ccounts in order and learn to live within their means, or, at least, within reasonable overdraft facilities.

But is the current system sustainable in the long term? I don't think so.

I maintain that the UK, not just England, can only really sustain 16 top flight teams. Too many at the bottom half of the Premier League spend heir time going up and down between the Championship and the Premier League. It could probably be argued that there are only 10 or 12 genuinely Premier League teams. This is a nonsense and, added to the financial chaos that is found at man clubs, it is not a sensible way to continue.

I think it's time that the F.A. took a look over the Atlantic and seriously considered a franchise system.

A franchise system would require financial certainty and propriety, and would be a positive way to ensure no more Rangers or Portsmouthhs happen.

Yes, those teams who don't make the cut will be upset but, hey, that's life. the clubs could continue as semi-professional or amateur teams and, consequently, have a much stronger and safer future.

As part of the franchise system, I think it's important that we move to a UK league. Having separate leagues and FAs for each constituent part of the UK is just a nonsense.

So I'd suggest a Franchise Premier League would have 3 London clubs, geographically spread around capital and neighbouring counties, a Welsh team, a Northern Irish team, possibly 2 Scottish teams, a team in North East of England, 2 or 3 North West teams, a southern team and a south west team. One team in East Midlands and 2 in the West Midlands.

And that's it.

If a club develops financial problems they lose their franchise, simple.

A franchise system would demand greater financial openness.

And, to help the clubs, I'd suggest an "average salary" cap for the first team squad.After all, it is the greed of the players that has caused many, if not quite all, the financial woes of clubs.

OPINION: "Foreigners" playing for national teams

With the announcement of the Six Nations teams this week, my Twitter timeline had a fair few England supporters decrying the selection of non-English players. This, of course, isn't a new thing; back in the 70s a lot of the England cricket team were born in South Africa or Southern Rhodesia (as Zimbabwe was then called), and in recent years it has become more common for players in all sorts of sports to change nationality and compete for a new country.

Probably the most infamous example was when Zola Budd, a Soutt African runner, had her papers rushed through to allow her to avoid the sporting boycott her country of birth had placed on it and compete for the UK, a country for which she had little connection or knowledge, but a country who fancied a chance of an extra medal or two at the 1984 Olympic Games in Los Angeles.

Of course, in the UK we have the nonsense of a huge number of sportsmen and women having to decide which constituent part (England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland) they want to represent, and this can come down to the "nationality" of one of their four grandparents. In all sports, if we are to have international teams, the IK should have one national team as the premier elite team, not subdivisions.

We also have the nonsense of someone representing, say, Wales as a schoolboy international but becoming an England full international. Total nonsense.

So, with such a history of people changing nationality, why do some people still have a problem with it? There is, of course, only one possible answer: xenophobia - or, in some cases, racism. Nick Griffin and Nigel Farage would be proud of these Little Englanders and their attitudes to those who don't share the same country of birth, while the rest of have to bite our lips at the blatantly offensive beliefs if these moral Neanderthals.

Personally I find it bizarre that anyone has a loyalty or sense of belonging and kinship to a country that they have inherited purely by an accident of birth. Their mother could have been anywhere when she gave birth to them; nationality is an accident, and to exclude others on grounds of nationality is moronic, at best, and very dangerous, at worst.

The solution is easy, though the loud mouthed and ignorant xenophobes, supported by offensively nationalistic newspapers and an establishment that calls on "national pride" whenever they are at a low ebb. We need to have national teams selected on place of residence and not place of birth or. "legal nationality".

As I said, your place of birth is an accident. However, your place of residence is a choice. I choose to live in the UK, in the same way that Didier Drogba chooses to live in the UK. Sure, I'm unlikely to be chosen to represent any nation at any sport but, if I were, it would be a UK team. Drogba may well have been born in the Côte d'Ivoire but he has chosen to live and work in the UK. If he is to represent any national team it is more logical that he represents the country he has chosen to live in and not the country he moved away from.

Similarly, David Beckham could, at various times in his career, have represented the UK, Spain and the USA - and that way, at least, the GB Olympic team wouldn't have the nonsense of him begging to be selected in the GB Olympic football team in order to help promote Brand Beckham.

Let's stop playing the nationality card. It may have had a place a couple of centuries ago when few travelled around the world, but today nationality by birth is just silly. Nationality by choice is far more sensible, and is a kick in the teeth to all the horrible racists and xenophobes.

OPINION: What can the Irish do but not the UK?

Yesterday, while the Commonwealth were deciding whether future male or female members of one family should rule over them, there was an election in Ireland unlike anything we've ever seen in the UK. They were voting for their new Head of State - their President.

In Ireland, the Head of State is a largely ceremonial role. I know there are ill-informed monarchists who will say that Elizabeth Windsor, in her position as monarch, has a largely ceremonial role but they are ignoring the legal status and powers which the monarch really has.

The Irish President holds office for seven years and can only be re-elected once. Although political parties put forward candidates the role itself is non political.

Why can't we have such a system in the UK? If Liz Windsor, or any of her descendants, wishes to stand for election they can. And if they win then that's all well and good but why do the British public tolerate a system whereby the Head of State, and all the powers that includes, is selected by which birth canal a child passes through rather than their suitability for the job or being democratically elected?

It's time for a change. There are already parties planned for Liz's jubilee next year. Why not use them to celebrate her retirement and the introduction of an accountable Head of State?

It's time to learn from the Irish.

Election playlist

With the impending UK General Election (May 6th 2010) I decided to make an Election playlist - this will be a work in progress as I gradually add more things to it up to the election! Then I might make a "INSERT WINNER'S NAME HERE" playlist to mark the result!