Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Recently Flagged Comments

Recently flagged comments from all news stories on this site. Users must follow the site's moderation policy. Personal attacks, profanity, abusive conduct and expressions of prejudice are not allowed. If you want to retrieve a comment of yours that was recently deleted, visit your user page and click the Moderation link.

@#143 ... Iranian people dancing in the streets wrapping themselves in the real Iranian flag they've kept ...

US-Israeli attack triggers fear and panic in Iran
www.reuters.com

... Iranians fled cities in search of safety, rushed to stock up on food, and formed long queues at fuel stations as an attack on Iran by the United States and Israel spread fear and panic throughout the country.

When the strikes began on Saturday morning, explosions rocked Tehran and columns of smoke rose into the sky, shaking the city at the start of the Iranian working week. Israel said Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had been killed in the operation, but Iranian authorities have not confirmed his fate.

Residents reached by phone described scenes of chaos and alarm as they rushed to collect their children from school or made preparations to leave home for now. ...


Republicans EXPOSE Trump after HE STARTS WAR

www.youtube.com

Covers posts by Stephen Miller, Charlie Kirk, Ms. Lindsey right before the last Election warning that... only Trump could save us from Kamala Harris starting a War for Regime Change in Iran.

And Today's Magas like MTG posting their outrage with Trump's unilateral actions.

He's splitting his support right down the middle.

But hey, the price of Epstein Diversions had gotten really high!

So far, oil futures have risen nearly 3% ...
#84 | Posted by LampLighter

That's good for the Investor Class.
More good news?
Stealing Iran's oil is Historically Precedented.


Consortium
With a pro-Western Shah and the new pro-Western Prime Minister, Fazlollah Zahedi, Iranian oil began flowing again and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, which changed its name to British Petroleum (BP) in 1954, tried to return to its old position. However, Iranian public opinion was so opposed that the new government could not permit it.

Under pressure from the United States, BP was forced to accept membership in a consortium of companies which would bring Iranian oil back on the international market. BP was incorporated in London in 1954 as a holding company called Iranian Oil Participants Ltd (IOP).[41][42] The founding members of IOP included British Petroleum (40%), Gulf Oil (8%), Royal Dutch Shell (14%), and Compagnie Franaise des Ptroles (now TotalEnergies SE, 6%). The four Aramco partners -- Standard Oil of California (SoCal, later Chevron), Standard Oil of New Jersey (later Exxon), Standard Oil Co. of New York (later Mobil), and Texaco -- each held an 8% stake in the holding company.[41][43] In addition, these companies paid Anglo-Iranian about $90 million for their 60 percent share in the consortium, and a further $500 million, paid out of a ten cent per barrel royalty. The Shah signed the agreement on 29 October 1954, and oil flowed from Abadan the next day. Within a few months each of the American companies contributed 1 percent to Iricon, a consortium made up of nine independent American companies, which included Phillips, Richfield, Standard of Ohio, and Ashland.[6]:476"478

The founding members of the IOP at various stages came to be known as the Supermajors, the "Seven Sisters", or the "Consortium for Iran" cartel, and dominated the global petroleum industry from the mid-1940s to the 1970s.[44][45] Until the oil crisis of 1973, the members of the Seven Sisters controlled around 85% of the world's known oil reserves.

All IOP members acknowledged that the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) owned the oil and facilities in Iran, and IOP's role was to operate and manage them on behalf of NIOC. To facilitate that, IOP established two operating entities incorporated in the Netherlands, and both were delegated to NIOC.[41][42] Similar to the Saudi-Aramco "50/50" agreement of 1950,[46] the consortium agreed to share profits on a 50"50 basis with Iran, "but not to open its books to Iranian auditors or to allow Iranians onto its board of directors."[33] The negotiations leading to the creation of the consortium, during 1954"55, was considered as a feat of skillful diplomacy for the Seven Sisters.[43] Some viewed the move as leading to rising tensions with Iran, since it allowed IOP to divert and hide profits with ease -- effectively controlling Iran's share of the profits.
en.wikipedia.org

lmao @ INut... The Smartest Person in the World!

Here's something truly intelligent:

www.youtube.com

Lives in the Balance

I've been waiting for something to happen
For a week or a month or a year
With the blood in the ink of the headlines
And the sound of the crowd in my ear

You might ask what it takes to remember
When you know that you've seen it before
Where a government lies to a people
And a country is drifting to war

And there's a shadow on the faces
Of the men who send the guns
To the wars that are fought in places
Where their business interest runs

I want to know who the men in the shadows are
I want to hear somebody asking them why
They can be counted on to tell us who our enemies are
But they're never the ones to fight or to die

And there are lives in the balance
There are people under fire
There are children at the cannons
And there is blood on the wire

- J. Brown

Because Anthropic confirmed it and will remove the safeguards?

Because Anthropic said it? Sorry going to need more than a corporation trying to dictate policy of the government than their word.

They are determining how your democracy should work, the only thing they should insist on is that they remain inside the law.

You're just upset that Trump is President and anything he does is fascist, what a stupid way to go through life.


This gets to the core of the issue more than any debate about specific terms.

Do you believe in democracy? Should our military be regulated by our elected leaders, or corporate executives? Seemingly innocuous terms from the latter like "You cannot target innocent civilians" are actually moral minefields that lever differences of cultural tradition into massive control.

Who is a civilian and not? What makes them innocent or not? What does it mean for them to be a "target" vs collateral damage? Existing policy and law has very clear answers for these questions, but unelected corporations managing profits and PR will often have a very different answer.

Imagine if a missile company tried to enforce the above policy, that their product cannot be used to target innocent civilians, that they can shut off access if elected leaders decide to break those terms. Sounds, good, right? Not really - in addition to the value judgement problems I list above, you also have to account for questions like:

-What level of information, classified and otherwise, does the corporation receive that would allow them to make these determinations? How much leverage would they have to demand more?
-What if an elected President merely threatens a dictator with using our weapons in a certain way, ala Madman Theory/MAD? Is the threat seen as empty because the dictator knows the corporate executives will cut off the military? Is the threat enough to trigger the cutoff? How might either of those determinations vary if the current corporate executive happens to like the dictator or dislike the President?
-At what level of confidence does the cutoff trigger, both in writing and in reality?

The fact that this is a debate over AI does not change the underlying calculus. The same problems apply to definitions and use of ethically fraught but important capabilities like surveillance systems or autonomous weapons. It is easy to say "But they will have cutouts to operate with autonomous systems for defensive use!", but you immediately get into the same issues and more - what is autonomous? What is defensive? What about defending an asset during an offensive action, or parking a carrier group off the coast of a nation that considers us to be offensive?

At the end of the day, you have to believe that the American experiment is still ongoing, that people have the right to elect and unelect the authorities making these decisions, that our imperfect constitutional republic is still good enough to run a country without outsourcing the real levers of power to billionaires and corpos and their shadow advisors. I still believe.

And that is why "bro just agree the AI won't be involved in autonomous weapons or mass surveillance why can't you agree it is so simple please bro" is an untenable position that the United States cannot possibly accept.


x.com

Our system, which somehow failed to prosecute CSA President Jefferson Davis after the catastrophic Civil War, yet in 1859 found a way to convict and hang John Brown a mere 44 days after his capture at Harper's Ferry, failed us.


This same system gave us Dummkopf Trumpf who will never spend a moment in a prison cell.

After seizing power on 20 Jan 2025, Trumpf will hold on to it, like a vicious unenlightened tyrant.

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy