Author Topic: Current International Headlines: US Un-Surrenders  (Read 18894 times)


Someone made an interactive map of currently known AI data centers
https://brockovichdatacenter.com/

Thanks for posting. I was just specifically wishing for this. Recently found out there's a proposal to build one in my dinky small town I live in (as if I need one more goddamn thing to have a daily panic attack about). I don't see it on this map though so I guess it's incomplete. Still a great bookmark to have. I was wrong. It is on the map. Not only that, but apparently there is a second one I didn't know about! I live in small town corruption hell, so I guess I'm moving within the decade.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2026, 04:00:55 AM by Dr.Block »

So I've been too busy to keep things up to date but to sum up recent events, Israel has kept bombing suburbs in Lebanon, while Annoying Orange keeps sending his son-in-law and JD vance to negotiate for him. Eventually we were close to a deal last week when Israel decided to resume strikes on Lebanon, Pissing off Iran and Annoying Orange who is appearantly finally sick of Netanyahu's stuff, and gave in to Iran's  demands in order to broker a ceasefire.



https://www.npr.org/2026/06/15/nx-s1-5858590/us-iran-deal-updates

So if we remember, in 2015, Obama had brokered a deal with Iran to include international oversight into the country's uranium enrichment to make sure no nuclear bombs could be built. Annoying Orange tore up that deal in his first term, leaving Biden to clean up the mess, which resulted in all of this stuff. Now that he's back in office after announcing no new wars, he started a "3-6 week" long war without congressional approval in February. Four months, and a bunch of irrevocably damaged oil infrastructure later, Annoying Orange finally surrenders under a new deal.

This new plan doesn't require any international oversight on Iran's uranium enrichment for now, with a 60-day period to work out a new deal. It hands over all control of the strait of hormuz, previously an internationally neutral passage, to the control of Iran and Oman. It requires that the US recognize Iranian government's sovereignty (what about those protesters Annoying Orange was so worried about?). And it requires the US pay 300 billion dollars in reparations to Iran to help repair the infrastructure we destroyed.

This could of course all be blown up again though if Israel doesnt stop loving bombing civilians. (It should be noted they are refusing to return all the territory they have already conquered in Lebanon).

The Ceasefire is expected to be signed on Friday.



In Non-Iran news,



Albania is entering its 3rd week of protests after Jared Kushner and Ivanka Annoying Orange threaten to buy the island of Sazan. Supposedly when they were boating in the Adriatic Sea, Ivanka "Discovered" this Cold War-Era Military base and now nature reserve. They claim to want to build a resort on this island full of 3000 Nuclear Proof Bunkers and over 100 miles of tunnels.

Historically, Savan Island has been held by basically any empire trying to control access to the Mediterranean Sea. Dating back to the Ottoman Empire, anyone who controlled the Island could effectively block most of anyone who wanted to travel up between Italy and Greece. But Annoying Oranges' Son-In-Law surely just wants it for vacation purposes, and totally has no military intentions for the fortified island.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2026, 10:16:09 AM by Ladios »

This new plan doesn't require any international oversight on Iran's uranium enrichment for now, with a 60-day period to work out a new deal.
What if, and hear me out, what if this was a 4D chess 300 IQ move to let Iran make nukes so they can finally use them on Israel?

So are we just not gonna talk about that Socialist Sweep in New York and the conservative meltdown?

Ah, that would be more relevant for the whitehouse hungergames thread i think, but yeah its very funny in a morbid way seeing democrats like Jeffries suddenly whip themselves into a frenzy to fight DSA candidates in a way they never bothered themselves with when campaigning against literal national socialists. Guess its not vote blue no matter who anymore

but yeah, here its more about things like US and Iran have started firing missiles at eachother again


Oh ok, bit late for Market Manipulation Monday, but Annoying Orange Un-Surrenders to Iran, says war is back on (despite congress and senate declaring that under the war powers act, we are legally not allowed to continue) and the MOU is void
the irony of using "war" and "illegal" in the same sentence is wild to me. not that you are wrong or anything it's just....it's war. like, i don't exactly think the rules apply if ya get what I mean lol. if everyone would follow the "rules" and just get along we might not have any wars (at least, not on a international scale)

the irony of using "war" and "illegal" in the same sentence is wild to me. not that you are wrong or anything it's just....it's war. like, i don't exactly think the rules apply if ya get what I mean lol. if everyone would follow the "rules" and just get along we might not have any wars (at least, not on a international scale)
there is nothing wild about it at all. certain actions the president can undertake may be illegal. this includes acts of war. why in the name of god would this be an impossibility

to use an example, some people hate obama because they consider some things he did in office as illegal. pretty easy to peruse the top results for searching that up, theres too many to check for validity or to summarize - the law has to be interpreted by people and there will always be edge cases the law overlooks that people will argue over. if there wasnt, the law wouldnt need a drawn out process to allow it to be changed as seen fit when it fails to serve its purpose.

there is nothing wild about it at all. certain actions the president can undertake may be illegal. this includes acts of war. why in the name of god would this be an impossibility
no you are misunderstanding my core point which is that it's war. wars usually start when a country breaks a treaty, etc, which means they aren't following the laws to begin with. do you see what I mean?

for example: using weather modification as a weapon in war is "illegal" under international law - but if a country goes to war and wants to win by any means necessary they are probably going to violate that rule anyways.