sadly no body cams were being worn by the agents.I guess you don't value law enforcement lives.a illegals rights are more important than those of people our government hires to get rid of illegal aliens.

This is something you can simply ask Google AI.
I know you don't think it's right-wing enough, but if it's not true,
then you could argue against it:

The "Shithole" Countries Debate: Western Intervention vs. Internal Failure:

The economic and political situation in developing countries is the result of a complex interplay between historical external interventions and internal political factors. No single region has been shaped exclusively by one factor; everywhere, both colonial legacies and modern domestic mismanagement
play a role.

Latin America (South and Central America)
In this region, the historical and geopolitical impact of the West (specifically the United States) is highly documented, though internal corruption and populism play an equally large role in current instability.
• Western impact: During the Cold War, the US actively destabilized leftist governments through the doctrine of regime change. Concrete examples include the CIA-backed coup in Guatemala (1954) in favor of the United Fruit Company, and the support for the military dictatorship of Pinochet in Chile (1973). Economic embargoes have heavily suffocated local economies. Most notably, while Venezuela already faced internal economic challenges, aggressive U.S. sanctions targeting its oil sector—the country's largest natural resource and economic backbone—crippled its ability to export and severely accelerated its economic collapse. Before these sweeping sanctions hit, the country was performing significantly better economically.
• Internal factors: Countries like Venezuela and Argentina have run themselves deep into trouble through decades of macroeconomic mismanagement, hyperinflation, and corruption under populist leaders (such as Chavism), independent of external pressure. In countries like Colombia and Mexico,
drug cartels and weak rule of law play a decisive internal role.

Africa (Sub-Sahara)
Africa struggles with the deepest colonial scars in the world, but also with persistent post-colonial internal power struggles.
• Western impact: The artificial borders drawn by European powers during the Berlin Conference of 1884 forced rival ethnic groups into a single country, laying the foundation for later civil wars (such as in Nigeria and Rwanda). The brutal exploitation of resources (such as in the Congo under the Belgian King Leopold II) left countries behind without infrastructure or an educated elite. During the Cold War, the West supported dictators like Mobutu Sese Seko (Zaire/Congo) because they were anti-communist.
• Internal factors: Since independence (mostly around 1960), many African countries have dealt with 'kleptocracies'—regimes where leaders plunder the state treasury for self-enrichment. Zimbabwe collapsed economically under Robert Mugabe due to disastrous land reform policies and hyperinflation. Countries like Somalia and South Sudan suffer from internal tribal struggles and the inability to establish a functioning central government.

The Middle East
This is a region where direct Western military interventions and border adjustments have enormously amplified existing religious and ethnic fault lines.
• Western impact: After the First World War, Great Britain and France divided the region via the Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916) without taking Sunni, Shia, or Kurdish territories into account. In Iran (1953), the US and the UK deposed the democratically elected Prime Minister Mossadegh after he nationalized the oil, leading to the autocratic Shah and ultimately the Islamic Revolution of 1979. The 2003 Iraq War by a US-led coalition completely destabilized the region and created the vacuum in which ISIS could emerge.
• Internal factors: The deep, centuries-old religious struggle between Saudi Arabia (Sunni) and Iran (Shia) drives numerous proxy wars (such as in Yemen). Additionally, many regimes, such as the Assad regime in Syria, choose brutal repression of their own population to stay in power, leading to the total destruction of the country.

Asia (South and Southeast Asia)
Asia demonstrates most clearly how countries with the exact same colonial background can take completely different paths due to their own policies.
• Western impact: The British partition of British India into India and Pakistan (1947) caused a humanitarian disaster and a permanent military conflict over Kashmir. In Southeast Asia, the Vietnam War and the secret American carpet-bombings of Laos and Cambodia left deep economic and physical scars.
• Internal factors: Asia proves that internal choices are decisive. Pakistan has marginalized itself through the enormous power of the military, corruption, and religious extremism. Conversely, countries like Singapore, Zuid-Korea, and now also Vietnam and India—despite a history of colonization or devastating wars—have grown into economic superpowers through stable domestic policies, investments in education, and strong rule of law.

Summary for the Discussion:
1. The West dealt the bad cards: Colonial powers left behind structures (artificial borders, plundered resources, overthrown democracies) that caused these countries to start with an enormous disadvantage.

2. Internal leaders played the game poorly: Many post-colonial leaders exploited that vulnerability for personal gain, corruption, and dictatorship, instead of building institutions.

3. Success is possible: Countries that got their internal affairs in order (such as South Korea or Singapore) became successful despite their Western past. Countries where internal politics failed (such as Venezuela or Zimbabwe) collapsed.

How about Fukushima?
Accidents happen. Even if the chance is 1:1M (historically proven it's much higher), when you multiply that risk by the number of nuclear power plants required, something catastrophic will happen at some point. Such catastrophes could cost more than the complete energy transition.
That's not worth it, because nuclear power is only a temporary solution, because the uranium will run out at some point. It's already becoming more and more expensive to mine the stuff.

Even if all those problems didn't exist, it still takes 10 years before any nuclear power plant has compensates his own build. But it first takes 10 years to build any. Then after 20 years, they are just as CO2 effecient as wind and solar. That's too late. We need to lower CO2 emissions ASAP.

Anyone with some money to spare can invest in their own solar panels,
lower their costs and be less dependent on power companies.
It's nice to have air-conditioning in a heat wave, when the government
is telling you not to use power or you can't afford it when power companies are charging you 100x the normal rate.

only registered users can see external links