Foreign aid is another term for bribery

1. I will keep your definition of military rather than government because that is more a accurate definition. However, it is important to not that the military authority is a government and, unless acting rogue, will listen to orders from the government. 2. I will accept your conclusion for not citing sources as long as you are aware it makes all of your arguments less credible. I have no reason to address issues that I feel are mere speculation of exaggeration because I have no way of knowing whether you are getting your information from a specific source or just some random part of your brain. 3. You keep talking about "if the U.S....then Singapore..." This is talking in a present future tense. In other words, you are basically saying you know the future. It is a minor point because I understand what you are trying to say, but try to be more logical and less emotional when making statements about what will happen when another thing happens. 4. You gave a excellent example to illustrate your point and I have no reason (outside of a lack a verifiable sources) to dismiss that argument as true. 5. This is my main point so please read carefully. If everything about your example is true, then the problems are not caused by the American militia, but rather the Singaporean government. The thing about bribes is you can decline them. If the U.S., in your example, was forcing the country to make these purchases through threats of violence, then it would no longer be a bribe and no longer be aid. We would be having a different conversation. In morality, it is significantly more immoral to accept a bribe than to offer one. 6. The citizen is not required to use any of the products you listed with the only possible exception being the toilet. If the Singaporean citizen does not want to buy Starbucks no one is forcing s/he to. "If Lee Hsien Loong wasn't corrupt, then Singaporeans would be buying tea from their compatriots. Instead of it being a free market, Lee Hsien Loong has given western corporations an artificial advantage." Well this statement ruined your debate for a couple of reasons.(1) You used the term free market. I do not thing Lee Hsien Loong is taking away any freedom from the Singapore people by adding more options. The more corruptions added the more like a free market Singapore will be. This has obvious flaws, but it is actually in keeping with the idea of free market.(2) Referring back to my earlier point, you are seeming to imply that the Singaporeans are being forced to buy American products. "They would be buying tea from compatriots." Then why aren't they still?" You claim that these places shut down the small local businesses, yet it is not the competion's fault, it has to be the consumer. That is how the free market works. CONCLUSION: Your debate up to this point has been very hard for to read merely because it is comprised of examples only. Your thesis is "Foreign Aid is another term for bribery." You can use examples, but instead just thinking about particular stories you have heard or read about, please try to logically prove your thesis. Why is foreign aid always just a politically correct way of saying bribery?