Respect has to be earned, Thorne. It is not a right. And it most certainly does not accrue to any nation simply because it makes half-hearted gestures. Mealy-mouthed assistance creates more resentment than gratitude.

Britain knows that better than most other nations because of its history. It made itself rich on the backs of its colonies and it is still rich, while many of its former colonies are among the poorest nations in the world. Thus, when we make aid payments, we do not receive much thanks: it is regarded as a form of recompense. America is seen by those nations in much the same light as Britain. Not the former colonial power (America has only a few overseas possessions or colonies), but a commercial invader instead. While people hunger in the bush, Gerneral Motors, Bank of America, McDonalds and Coca-Cola make fortunes in the cities, which are then turned into dollars and repatriated to the USA. American companies have extracted at least as much from the third world countries as Britain did and can rightly be considered to have grown even richer as a result. Its moral duty to offer recompense is no less than ours, or France's, Germany's Belgium's or Holland's. It's just that these other nations recognise they have that obligation.

Thus, it does not sound well when you complain that you are not thanked for "all" the aid you give: what thanks did you give (as a nation) for the riches you have approrpiated from those poor countries?

But my comments were not really focused on the duty to repay other obligations, but to respond to real and urgent need. If tiny Luxemburg and Scandinaiva can all give about 1% of their income in the form of international aid, why can the world's richest nations give only a fraction of that amount? Britain and Germany give only 1/3 percent, while Japan and USA can give only 1/6%. OK, USA gives more dollars than anyone else - twice as much as the next country, but it can - and should - give much more if it truly wants to provide real assistance rather than just to salve its conscience. The comments Thorne and other Americans have made here and elsewhere in this connection demonstrate why USA is seen as an extremely mean country.

(And the aid given by Germany, Japan, France and Britain is mean too, I admit that, but we have long ago accepted the fact that everyone hates us for growing rich at their expense.)

As for the statement that you give without strings, think again. More than any other nation, American aid is tied to trade agreements, political concessions and economic preferences. Frequently American aid is repayable and interest-bearing. And how much aid is, in fact, military expenditure. Israel receives vast amounts of military aid from USA - the curent murderous attacks on Palestinian citizens in Gaza benefits from American support, for example. USA supports unpopular governments because it gains an advantage from doing so. it has financed "counter-terrorism" (another word for terrorism) where favoured countries suffer from civil unrest, and it supports "freedom fighters/resistance movements" (more euphemisms for terrorists) where it does not approve of a national government. American aid follows American interests more closely than it goes to areas of need.

You'll get your respect when you deserve it.