The smiles that so readily crossed the faces of David Cameron and Barak Obama when they were together this week hid something sinister.

Their message – that the world will be a better place when countries behave like theirs – is contradicted by their foreign policy actions.

No sooner had Prime Minister Cameron waved President Obama goodbye than  he announced the deployment of Apache helicopters in Libya.  

Our objective is clearly to get rid of President Gaddafi through military rather than political means…yes, killing the same ruler that we rehabilitated a couple of years ago as the newly found friend of the west.

The BBC this morning suggested that the helicopters were likely to be used in targeting Gaddifi as he sped nightly from local hospital to local hospital to avoid NATO attacks.

Apache helicopters are very efficient killing machines with their night vision optical targeting devises which guide large calibre bullets onto the target with unerring accuracy from long distances.  It’s likely that Gaddafi will be soon killed or decide to surrender.

However, if Cameron follows the new US doctrine of dealing with its enemies, Gaddifi won’t be given the opportunity to surrender.

It is clear that Osama Bin Laden was in no position to defend himself when he was shot in the face in front of his cowering family by the crack US Naval  Seal team, a murder and breach of international law watched live by the President and Secretary of State in Washington.

Bin Laden should have been brought out alive to answer for the wicked crimes he orchestrated. This would have justified the American’s uninvited encroachment into another state’s territory and given the world a message that if the US is going to act as an international policeman, then the criminals will end up in court rather than murdered without a trial, rather like the victims of corrupt police squads in Baltimore.

Bin Laden would also have been more useful alive than dead as it’s difficult to get information from corpses rotting on the sea floor.

Cameron and Obama will get away with breaking international law and ordering the murder of terrorists and rulers they have fallen out with as well as the loss of innocent lives as a result.

But David Cameron should understand that the British people don’t like bullies and hypocrites. Nor do we want millions of pounds spent fighting wars that don’t concern us. 

And when the news bulletins show the funerals of the young helicopter crew lost when an Appache is hit by a ground to air missile, we will ask why more British lives are being wasted in futile campaigns that only increase the animosity of those who don’t share our values.

General Sir David Richards, head of the armed forces, believes Nato should intensify the current campaign by targeting the infrastructure that’s keeping Col Gaddifi in power.  Otherwise, he says, we run the risk of a stalemate.

Defence Secretary Liam Fox agrees that it’s legitimate to degrade the command and control and intelligence networks of the regime, which is code for bombing more of Libya’s roads, railways, food depots, factories and refineries.

So what started as a ‘no fly zone’ now looks like an increased war effort with the aim of killing Gaddafi and destroying Libya’s infrastructure.

Why is Sir David comfortable with this new doctrine that allows an alliance of external countries to go to war on the side of one of the protagonists in another country’s civil war in order to kill its leader and enable ‘regime change’? It would seem prima facie to break international law.

Does Liam Fox know who is likely to take over the running of a divided and tribal country if Gaddafi is killed? How can he be sure Libya won’t descend into greater chaos and bloodshed?

Don’t both of them recognise that Libyans who neither loathe Gaddafi nor are willing to die for the rebel cause are unlikely to view Nato with much goodwill when they suffer from the affects of destroyed infrastructure, lack of food, water, petrol and other essentials, and when, as Baroness Amos, the UN’s under-secretary for humanitarian relief, points out, far more of them will be killed.

Valerie Amos reflects public opinion in this county when she argues for a political rather than a military solution to Libya’s civil war.

We know what’s behind our intervention in Libya.  At a time when the government wants to reduce the military budget, fighting a war in the full view of  the media is a wonderful opportunity for our military leaders to say the UK needs to retain its ability to intervene in such conflicts for humanitarian reasons and to rid the world of dangerous despots.

To which the answer is ‘No, we can only afford a military force to defend our legitimate national interest, not go to war in countries that don’t threaten us.  Our intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan has ended in failure so let’s not repeat our mistake in Libya.’

The voters should also say to Liam Fox that we aren’t prepared to support spending £3million a day to drop bombs to destroy a Libya’s intrastructure, kill its young soldiers and get rid of Col Gaddafi. What happens in Libya should be for Libyans to decide.

But the military and the Government won’t take much notice…they know only too well the rich pickings for the UK firms that will get the contracts to rebuild the infrastructure once a sort of peace has settled on Libya and to sell arms to re-equip the country’s forces with yet more deadly weapons.

As ever, the taxpayers will pay for the war while a few rich people will get much richer once it’s over.

 The theme of this year’s Dying Matters Coalition Awareness Week (16 to 22 May) is ‘Why Dying Matters to me’ which is as good as any to get people to address the taboo surrounding death.

I fully support the aims of Dying Matters, a broad coalition headed by the National Council for Palliative Care, to raise awareness of death, dying and bereavement. This shouldn’t come as a huge surprise since My Last Song was established in the belief that more people would address their mortality on line, and use My Last Song to ‘Go out on a high note.’

I take heart in the increasing signs that society is more ready to address the subject of death in a positive way. This, I think, is because people are living longer and therefore most deaths don’t cause the terrible grieving such as Queen Victoria’s reaction to the early passing of her beloved Prince Albert.

So, does the ending of a long and fulfilled life mean that death is easier to address?  Is it also easier to accept given a medical diagnosis of a terminal illness that allows time to come to terms with a life that will end?

For many people the thought of discussing the end of life causes distress, anxiety and embarrassment, and they want to put it off. However, as Dying Matters understands, if you face the subject from a more informed and positive approach, the negatives are reduced.

My Last Song has produced an innovative and holistic ‘Death Plan’ template to encourage discussion about a person’s last days alive so that they have a ‘good death’.  The issues that are covered include medical treatment, physical comfort, emotional and spiritual needs and ways in which stress and fear can be reduced.

The questions are designed to involve the person’s doctor, close family and friends and even professional advisers so that the person whose life is ending has no concerns about issues, such as their will or who looks after their pets, that should have been resolved.

I hope that all those who support Dying Matters and who will use this week to raise awareness will also see the benefits of promoting personalised death plans as a way of reducing the fear of dying and increasing our control over how we end our lives.