Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Saturday, October 03, 2009

For all the recent uproar over Iran's nuclear program, little attention has been paid to the fact that the country which first provided Tehran with nuclear equipment was the United States. In 1967, under the "Atoms for Peace" program launched by President Eisenhower, the US sold the Shah of Iran's government a 5-megawatt, light-water type research reactor. This small dome-shaped structure, located in the Tehran suburbs, was the foundation of Iran's nuclear program. It remains at the center of the controversy over Iranian intentions, even today.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

American1st

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

That explains Clinton/Korea

I think she went there in search of the 'tapedondong' she'd heard about...

In 1978, President Carter and the Shah struck a deal that would have sent eight US-made light-water reactors to Iran

I just love these swinging dicks who blame the Democrats for something a REPUBLICAN began. Had it not of been for the REPUBLICAN Eisenhour a Democrat would have not given Nuclear Helps to Iran to begin with. Look up Operation Ajax sometime A1st and place the blame squarely where it belongs. Upon Ike's shoulders.

Larry

Who was the President in '67, Larry? I don't give a flying fig what Ike started, it was a Democrat who gave Iran a nuclear reactor.

And Carter wanted to give them 8 more.

Who was the President in '67, Larry? I don't give a flying fig what Ike started, it was a Democrat who gave Iran a nuclear reactor.

Posted by American1st at 2009-10-03 10:33 AM | Reply

Hey Dipshit if it wasn't for Ike getting all cozy with the Shah of Iran. We reinstalled His ass by throwing out the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED President of Iran) We would have never been friendly towards them and subsequently not given them that Nuclear Technology. I know that escapes Your spew A1st but thems the facts.

Larry

So can we blame Carter for the power and influence Iran has today? As well as the future? He gives them a reactor, then the next year imposes an embargo? He had concern over giving them the reactor, but makes sure there is no way to verify? This is the brilliant President many here give credit?

Any guesses who held the Majority in both Houses? Anybody see a pattern today? The dems hand them a reactor to build a bomb in 1978. The dems allow them to build a bomb in 2009.

What is the over/under on posts deflecting with Reagan and Iraq? I say 11- by the time this thread hits the backpage.

The significance of light water reactors is lost on some. Another stupid talking point by Republicans.

#7...
Are you saying if a dem was pres. we wouldn't have cozied up the same way as Eisenhower? You do know they have oip there, right Larry?

BTW... That counts as one of the 11- towards the spread. A republican deflection

oip-oil

"The Dems allow them to build a bomb in 2009...."

Glad to make a deflection here. Bush II had two terms to stop this Iranian bomb, including control of Congress.

We know he wanted war with Iran, so why was there never one? Lack of will? Lack of resources?

Nah. The man squandered the chance with Iraq. In his "defense", Bush thought Iraq would be easy, and thought he would move onto Iran by 2004.

But, reality overtook him. We got our noses shoved into the always present fact that wars are never cheap or easy. And this is what his successor is dealing with now.

No shit sherlock that Iran has Oil there. They are I believe the THIRD LARGEST proven Oil reserves in the world. It's not rocket science why the US Government wants to control Afghanistan Iran and Iraq. Oil and Natural Gas reserves. The trouble is we do bnot have a right to dictate what another Country does but that doesn't stop our collective arrogance in that persuit.

Larry

Foir the record I have absolutely NO problems with Iran getting Nukes. I don't blame them one bit with an arrogant United States trying to fuck in the middle east and attacking COuntries that never attacked them I myself if I was in charge of a Country over there would get some Nukes Myself.

Larry

#12...

I see you are not familiar with a deflection. Read your post again and right after the word Bush, stop right there. That is a deflection.

That's 2... Down to 9- in only a few minutes. Easy money.

From World Proved Reserves of Oil and Natural Gas,
Most Recent Estimates
www.eia.doe.gov

Oil & Gas Journal January 1, 2009 Jan 1, 2009

Saudi Arabia 266.710 billion barrels
Iran 136.150 billion barrels
Iraq 115.000 billion barrels
Kuwait 104.000 billion barrels

#13...
I appreciate you jumping from 1967 to 2009 with your Sherlock retort. I asked if a dem "would" have cozied up exactly as Eisenhower did because of their oil. The pretext being back in the 60's.

My post is also nothing more than the truth, CRISPEE. If there is to be war with Iran, it won't be our best effort. That's the legacy of George W. Bush.

#12...

Any reason you omitted the previous admin. Twenty or so years prior to your foolish Bush deflection?

Any reason you omitted the previous admin. Twenty or so years prior to your foolish Bush deflection?

Posted by crispee_oc at 2009-10-03 11:04 AM | Reply

Any reason why You conveinantly Omitted who got the whole ball rolling in the first place namely a REPUBLICAN names IKE Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. It's not rocket science.

Larry

"Twenty or so years before your follish Bush delfection....."

So....The last eight years....Special category for those? Just amazing given all this carping about Ike and Carter. Bush WAS president, wasn't he?

"My post is also nothing more than the truth, CRISPEE. If there is to be war with Iran, it won't be our best effort. That's the legacy of George W. Bush."

Let's say you are correct. The question I have is... What the fuck does it have to do with CARTER AND THE THREAD???

BTW... can't count that. Already gave one for first stupid deflection. Still at 9-...

It has everything to do with the subject of the thread. You want to assign responsibility to a Democrat. I'm just pointing out you have to shut your eyes to an awful lot to do that.

#20...

I didn't convienently omit anyone Larry. The fact is Carter is the one who imposed an embargo after giving them a reactor. Even after airing concerns about doing it. Since you forgot that was part of my post, was it a good idea for Carter to remove any possible monitoring by his embargo? You want to get away from Eisenhower for one second and answer that?

That, in fact, there is no "pattern" the likes of which some of you want to identify. Carter, just to remind you, was dealing with a close friend and partner of the US at the time, the same one Reagan dealt with.

I'm sorry, the same one (Iran) Nixon dealt with and then Ford.

"It has everything to do with the subject of the thread. You want to assign responsibility to a Democrat. I'm just pointing out you have to shut your eyes to an awful lot to do that."

This is a close one and may need a committee to decide. Does more than one stupid deflection combined with ignorance count as a full deflection to the spread? I am going to give it a half. So it is now down to 9...

"Combined with ignorance..."

I'm not the one who appears not to understand what light water reactors are.

Look---You wanted the Iranians to have no Bomb---Maybe you should have prevented them from attending Americn universities and majoring in physics. Just a thought.

#26...

Shit Zed may beat the spread all by himself... But nobody is allowed more than one and a half.

Obscurantism always trumps debate. You win, CRISPEE. Doesn't mean you should be writing history books, though.

#28...
Not arguing I was an expert. I am simply commenting on the article. Right? Something you seem to run from by your constant deflections. If the article is bogus, prove it. Blaming Bush is hardly an experts opinion. What you got little man?

Maybe you should have prevented them from attending Americn universities and majoring in physics. Just a thought.
#29 | Posted by Zed

Can't argue with that one.

"Blaming Bush is hardly and expert's opinion...."

"Not arguing I was an expert..."

"What you got little man....?"

Apparently as least as much as you do.

Obscurantism always trumps debate.
#31 | Posted by Zed at 2009-10-03 11:21 AM

When are going to see the light and the error of your ways on this thread???

"When are going"

When are you...

"What you got little man....?"

Apparently as least as much as you do.

#34 | Posted by Zed at 2009-10-03 11:24 AM

You seem to claim the article is bogus. Not me. It is up to you to make that argument. So far it has fallen way short. Prove your case Zed. Man up.

Larry ran away from a direct question. Are you going to do the same Zed?

In 1978, President Carter and the Shah struck a deal that would have sent eight US-made light-water reactors to Iran, pending Congressional approval. A year later, the Iranian revolution forced the Shah from power and the deal fell apart.

We all know who was the Majority of both Houses and approved the reactors going to Iran. I guess they should be as much to blame as Carter.

Larry ran away from a direct question. Are you going to do the same Zed?

Posted by crispee_oc at 2009-10-03 11:33 AM | Reply

I didn't run away I got tired of You denying the fucking truth so I left the thread. Why waste My tiume on Ya You know.

Larry

#40...

It was a pretty simple yes or no question Larry. Are you sure you are not running because your answer may make you or Carter look foolish?

Democrats gave Iran Nukes.

And Chimpy gave Iran the province of Iraq, and it only cost $3 trillion and the lives of 4500 soldiers.

"Would have sent eight light water reactors to Iran...The deal fell apart..."

So, what's being blamed on Carter? Your intellectualism has confused me.

A nuclear reactor was sold to Iran as part of President Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace" program. But even then the US had concerns about what might happen if the Shah fell to 'domestic dissidents.'
. . .
In 1978, President Carter and the Shah struck a deal that would have sent eight US-made light-water reactors to Iran, pending Congressional approval. A year later, the Iranian revolution forced the Shah from power and the deal fell apart.

And AmericaLast -- obviously drunk pretty early this morning -- titles this thread "Democrats gave Iran Nukes"?


While RCade, on the other hand, recognzing a bullshit title when he sees one gives AmericaLast's feeble effort at dissembling a kick in the ass out the door and adds the accurate -- gee, sorry there, AmericaLast -- title, "US Started Iran's Nuclear Program."

Rather than worry about a middle-eastern country getting a nuclear weapon or not why don't the superpowers establish a MAD doctrine for the entire region?
Any country in the region (Israel included) that uses a nuclear weapon is immediately incinerated.
Worried about the oil? Bring back the neutron bomb.

the US just had to assasinate one Democratically elected Iranian President and overthrow another one and still they don't like the outcome, worse than the other two Democracies. So now they're itching for another unaffordable war, right after they finish bailing out Wall Street crooks. Taxpayers deserve it anyway. Stupid peasants that they are and all.

. So now they're itching for another unaffordable war...

Fucking war mongering Obama, anyway

Hey, Doc...who was the President in 1967? I did't think a policy issue implemented in 1954 would still have teeth in 1967....but, hey, if you want to deny the truth...that a Dem POTUS gave Nukes to Iran,(and a second Dem WANTED to give them 8x more), by laying the blame for said TRUTH on my current state of intoxication (or lack thereof), then go for it. Nice to see I got 'neath your skin, Doc_Apologist...

A DEMOCRAT President Gave Nukes to Iran!

Suc_This!

WTF are you talking about?

then in other news ~ JFK killed partially because he wouldn't let Israel have nukes...

The worst thing the U.S. could have done to empower Iran was the Iraq War.

In 1967, under the "Atoms for Peace" program launched by President Eisenhower

Lets see, who was president then. Was it Bush? Na, he wasn't old enough then. I wonder who?

On a personal note, I can't wait until Rcade creates killfiles. I will never have to read another stupid smarmy mean spirited post by Sniper ever again.

In 1978, President Carter and the Shah struck a deal that would have sent eight US-made light-water reactors to Iran, pending Congressional approval.

8? I believe Iran had 12 reactors lined up.

Where were the other 4 coming from? France maybe....

The Elected Leaders of Every Country Are The Bagmen of Their Local Defence Industries.

It Doesn't Matter Which Party Their From.

All Leaders Shill For Their Local Defence Industries.

Get Over It

I just love these swinging dicks who blame the Democrats for something a REPUBLICAN began. Had it not of been for the REPUBLICAN Eisenhour a Democrat would have not given Nuclear Helps to Iran to begin with. Look up Operation Ajax sometime A1st and place the blame squarely where it belongs. Upon Ike's shoulders.

Larry

I resisted all day yesterday, but I can't any longer. Larry, you are seriously slipping. Let me show you:

With regards to black liberation and suffrage:

I just love these swinging dicks who blame the Democrats for something a REPUBLICAN began. Had it not of been for the REPUBLICAN Lincoln, Obama would still be selling farm equipment to my ancestors.

I just love these swinging dicks who blame the Democrats for something a REPUBLICAN began. Had it not of been for the REPUBLICAN Lincoln a Democrat would have not currently be in the White House as a result of the black voting block and the "assistance" of ACORN.

Or better yet,

I just love these swinging dicks who blame the Republicans for something a DEMOCRAT began. Had it not of been for the DEMOCRAT Nathan Bedford Forrest, the Ku Klux Klan would never have been born. Had it not been for Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, the Birth of a Nation would not been such a hit.

Director D. W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation glorified the original Klan. His film was based on the book and play The Clansman and the book The Leopard's Spots, both by Thomas Dixon, Jr.. Dixon said his purpose was "to revolutionize northern sentiment by a presentation of history that would transform every man in my audience into a good Democrat!"

Yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnn. More mindless dribble from A_Citizen. Why am I nmot surprised.

Larry

Larry,

Well, at least you recognise your own logic as mindless dribble. Now all I have to do is get your mind back the way it was before it became corrupted by Obamania and we can again have deep, meaningful conversations where we didn't personally attack each other.

I have been reading your thoughts on government health care and can only conclude that you have recently acquired some sort of dred disease. If that is the case, my prayers are with you.

And Chimpy gave Iran the province of Iraq, and it only cost $3 trillion and the lives of 4500 soldiers.

#42 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2009-10-03 12:26 PM

You know, when your boy looks like Curious George You may not want to call someone else Chimpy.

Great, more "fallout" from toppling the democratically elected government of Iran and installing our puppet dictator. This "investment" just keeps paying dividends!

First we had the hostage crisis, then 9/11, and now we're fighting two wars in the Middle East -- one against the same "Freedom Fighters" we armed and trained when they were fighting the Soviets... the same Soviets a certain President of Iran was getting too cozy with, necessitating his ouster in 1953...

Having a light water reactore does not equal being able to build a nuclear weapon. A light water reactor is a Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR), and we have several in the US to generate electricity. The fuel in a light water reactor is U-235 and U-238 enriched such that it is non-explosive. A nuclear weapon uses U-236 which is highly explosive. The technology to build a light water reactor is more than significantly different to build a nuclear weapon. Apparently the bulk of the folks on this blog don't have a clue as to what it takes to buid a nuclear weapon. Instead all you do is piss and moan about who supplied the first light water reactor to Iran. Strongly recommend you Google Nuclear or Atomic Bomb and visit the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and see what the hell you're pissing an moaning about.

right

#63

No. Light Water Reactors use water made with Protium (an isotope of Hydrogen that's just a proton with an electron in orbit). This is as opposed to Heavy Water Reactors that use water made with Deuterium ( an isotope of Hydrogen with a proton and a neutron with an electron in orbit).

Deuterium is a neutron moderator. That means it slows down free neutrons. This is good in a nuclear reactor because it lessens the penetrating power of neutrons, lessening the amount of shielding required for the reactor and thus lowering the cost of the plant. This is bad in a reactor for two reasons. First, when Deuterium absorbs a neutron it becomes Tritium, a radioactive isotope of Hydrogen. Second, the moderating effects of Deuterium allows U-238, which makes up on average 65% of the fissile material in a nuclear reactor, to more easily absorb neutrons. When U-238 absorbs a neutron it becomes unstable, then beta-decays to Pu-239. Pu-239 is what's used to make weapons grade material for miniaturized nukes capable of being fitted to a missile.

A nuclear weapon uses U-236 which is highly explosive.

It's amazing how many things you got wrong with just one sentence. No nuclear weapon uses U-236. Nuclear weapons either use a mix of 90% U-235/10% U-238, or 60-90% Pu-239 with the remainder being some mix of U-235, U-238, and Pu-240 (though Pu-240 contamination needs to be below 7% to be considered "weapons grade"). Little boy, the first nuclear bomb detonated in anger, used U-235/U-238 mix. The Trinity bomb, the first nuclear detonation, used Pu-239. No isotope of Uranium is "highly explosive." Uranium, in a pure state, is readily oxidized, making it a (very expensive and fairly poor) low explosive. This is as opposed to high explosives that don't burn but chemically degrade. You might have been mistaken and meant "fissile" instead of explosive. Even then, U-235, what is actually used in nuclear bombs, is more fissile than U-236. Pu-239 is even more fissile than U-235, it being the most fissile long-lived isotope (long-lived meaning having a half-life of over 4 days).

Nuclear bombs made with U-235 as the fission initiator are large; they are very large. They are so large that they actually can't be equipped on missiles. In order to put a nuke on a missile, you need Pu-239. You can't generate Pu-239 outside of a reactor. (As an aside, LWR produce Pu-239 slowly and thus it tends to be too contaminated with Pu-240 to be usable in weapons. To make deliverable bombs you really need HWR like what North Korea has.) Iran's centrifuges cannot produce Pu-2399. They can produce weapons grade Uranium, but it would take then 5-10 years to gather enough for one bomb that wouldn't be usable in an actual conflict. Their setup is more geared towards producing enriched Uranium for use in a LWR. IIRC, the reactor they have is a LWR.

Suck it. Suck it long, and suck it hard.

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable