I think we are extending that scenario beyond its useful limits. Let's step back a bit.

I agree that I am putting forward my own view: I see it that every nation that can has a duty to provide aid to poorer countries.

I believe that, to be useful, the amount of aid given must be at least sufficient.

I also see it that nations have a right to expect their aid to be used as intended, and to direct it where it does the most good. (This means that if aid is misappropriated by recipient governments, then future aid can be withheld - but see below.)

I submit that nations have a duty to ensure that the poor and needy receive the aid they send, and this duty overrides the principle of national sovereignty.

Force can be used to protect such people against oppressors.

Now, the world and its politics are very complicated, and those five simple principles could easily be demonstrated to be unworkable. But only the spoilers would want to do that. Anyone who wanted to could pick them apart, by pointing to individual situations where they would be inappropriate or unworkable, or to play with the words I have used in order to give them a different effect. That's just them being disingenuous. The principles are easy to understand and are adaptable. Moreover, they are right.

For example, I have advocated the use of force in some instances. A careful calculation must be made before this happens, because, as has been rightly pointed out, an invasion might cause more harm than good. But if an invasion is out of the question, then other alternative action must be taken: covert operations to bring down the third world government, perhaps. Let's just not crash our helicopters in enemy territory before we get the job done, however!

So my position is, foreign aid is good and necessary. It does not matter who or what caused the poverty in the first place, nnor does it matter how it is explained away by tyranical leaders. It must be given, and it must be received by those who need it. It is unfortunate that the aid we currently provide is inadequate, especially as it is in our power to give more than is needed without even noticing it.

Givers of aid are not losers, but benefit from increased global wealth and trade. If there is a limit on what can be produced, we have not reached it yet.

Furthermore, the focus must be on the good that is done and the achivements that are made, not on the failures that occur. The fact that some aid programmes fail and that aid is misdirected is regrettable (and must be prevented in future) but it is a poor reason to stop giving it at all! It is a reason that is, unfortunately, cited by many however. (And on an individual level, those who give to obtain tax relief are missing the point of giving and don't understand why they get the tax break!)