There is a difference between never-ending foreign aid (the best foreign aid I could think of would be allowing the U.S. to economically develop Baja California and take 49.9% of the profits...Mexico would be bloody rich with the 50.1%), and disaster relief efforts (which most people here generally seem to support, including me).
I would add that as far as sending aid, look carefully at the aid provider and how the aid is going to be delivered (direct, hopefully), and of course watch out for those with a lot of overhead costs.
Well then you and "everybody else here" seem to miss the key points.:
1. Nobody, including me, is against aid. It is the format of the aid that is wrong and stupid.
2. Send people or goods--never send cash as our government is doing and as many people are sending to charities.
3. It is naive to think those in need will get this aid. Most cash will be diverted to corrupt leaders and to terrorists.
4. Here is the key--why should our government add to more welfare? Why not take this 35 million (or whatever it ends up being) out of the $1.1 trillion we spend on social welfare in fiscal year 2004? Divert current welfare spending to these terrorist nations--don't add to the sum total!
It is stupid and it is wrong to continue mismanaging American taxpayers' dollars.