Actually I was referring to Blair's comments:
In 1998, the Blair government's Strategic Defence Review stated that the country's military priority would be "force projection" and that "in the post-cold war world we must be prepared to go the crisis rather than have the crisis come to us". In 2002, Geoff Hoon became the first defence secretary to declare that British nuclear weapons could be used against non-nuclear nations. In December 2003, a defence white paper, Delivering Security in a Changing World, called for "expeditionary operations" in "a range of environments across the world". Military force was no longer "a separate element in crisis resolution"..."We should be proud... of the empire," he said last September. "The days of Britain having to apologise for its colonial history are over," he told the Daily Mail. These views touch the nostalgic heart of the British establishment, which, under Thatcher and Blair, has recovered from its long disorientation after Hitler gave all imperial plunderers a bad name.
The article, in case you did not notice, was a British one and primarily focused on UK.
But since you brought up the topic, why doesn't Bush use his "strong friendship" with his murderous thug to bring some relief to the Uzbeks? One would think asking his buddy not to kill women and children would be easier path to democracy than encouraging rainbow colored revolutions. |
