> Big brother? America trys, but I think we pay to much of a price, not mention all the negative repercussions afterwards. Some people are never happy. I think US should stop trying so hard to make the world happy. We are not a genie that people call whenever they need something and complain and bitch afterwards.

Dean:

I was not suggesting that the US be a big brother over any country in Africa except Liberia where you have a historical relationship with that country. I believe the capital is Monrovia and is named after one of your presidents.

The French have a close relationship with Morocco and Algeria. Plus they have a lot of Moroccans and Algerians living in their country. So they should know what makes the country tick and would be a good big brother.

The Americans generally know very little about a country before they invade. I think they make the mistake of thinking that the people there have American values and like the Americans. Norman Swatzkoff actually thought the Iraqis would welcome the troups because they were going to give them "freedom". So generally the US should not be given the roll of big brother over any country.

Now if a big brother country believes that their little brother country should be invaded, then the UN could bring in the military and some of the troups may be American. Also the military action should be guided by the big brother. Like in Sudan, the US used Hughey helicopters in Mogadishu and blew up a lot of apartment buildings. This turned out to be ineffective in solving the problems of Sudan.

The key point is that the big brother must have a good sense of what is causing the problems and what is the best way to solve them. In most cases a military option would not be used.