Jubbergun wrote:
No, it wasn't. If anything, the hostage crisis was the resolution of Carter's foreign policy, since he had pulled all the backing from the Shah. To further compound his idiocy, instead of letting the Shah swing from a rope, he allowed him to take refuge in the US. That pissed off the revolutionaries in Iran, and made us a, if not "the," bad guy. The hostage crisis followed from that.
How you think that attempting to sell weapons to moderates/counter-revolutionaries in Iran to fund revolutionaries elsewhere is the resolution of that (or the resolution of anything, for that matter) is beyond me. Personally, I don't think you do. This is just one of those odd occasions where you're stubbornly refusing to admit that you're wrong and grasping at any straw you think will buoy you out of that sea of error.
Carter wasn't the man who put the Shah in power, and if a Republican or anyone else had been president, the 1979 revolution would have happened anyway. You might as well say 9-11 wouldn't have happened if Al Gore was president. The Shah had been in power for decades, like I said, it was a festering problem that happened to blow up in 1979.
I said it already but you're obviously rejecting facts that don't jive with your biases. Hostages were finally released when Reagan promised to give the Islamic terrorists American weapons. I think what you don't get is that the "hostage crisis" went on for many months and that the events of Irancontragate didn't become public until years after they occured (in Reagan's second term).
Jubbergun wrote:
1) Go nuclear for electricity: In the over fifty year history of nuclear power, there have been only two major incidents, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.
The bulk of the problem with Three Mile Island was that technicians didn't follow protocols and defeated built-in safeguards because they believed the problem they were having to be something other than what the problem actually was. Despite these errors, no radiation or contaminants escaped that plant.
Chernobyl was a completely different monster in that it was a poorly designed (more likely poorly copied) facility that was overdue for overhaul/closure. Improper maintenance, bad design, and just plain age resulted in nuclear calamity that impacted the surrounding environment for decades to come.
While nuclear power is potentially hazardous, it is less polluting than conventional power, and properly designed and maintained facilities operating withing protocols minimize, if not completely negate, any risks.
That one should have been a no-brainer for a guy that served on nuclear subs.
I agree with some of this. From what I understand, Chernobyl's design was basically fine and the meltdown occurred slowly over many hours due to technical negligence.
Nuclear power is something that should be expanded, but cautiously, and we should use breeder reactors, which are currently taboo. In the long run, nuclear fusion is an attainable goal and should be developed.
Question though: Why does Carter and not Reagan or Bush deserve blame, since none of them did anything about it either?
Jubbergun wrote:
2)Infrastructure: Part of the energy problem is infrastructure. The fact that we haven't built a new oil refinery since Carter's time (because of rules enacted on his watch...way to solve the problem) is a large part of this problem. We have a system built for the demands of the 1970s attempting to pump out the fuels to meet demands three or four times greater. Most of our refineries are along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico, which puts those facilities in jeopardy due to hurricanes. The lack of processing our supply becomes even greater because due to regional environmental regulations. The fuel you can sell in Nebraska can't be sold in California.
There are two ways to combat this problem. First, switching the country to a unified fuel blend would have an immediate impact on both cost and production. Secondly, we should remove excessively restrictive regulations that make building new refineries cost-prohibitive. I do not wish to imply that there is no need for environmental safe-guards to minimize the environmental impact, since I breathe the same air most of you do, but some of the regulations are ridiculously restrictive and far exceed similar standards in other industries.
Oil companies should be encouraged to build refineries regionally. Since there is a lot of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) opposition to energy infrastructure, localities should be encouraged to embrace these facilities, as well. I am not sure how best to do this, since I discourage tax breaks/subsidies to control behavior, but the boon of new jobs and some cash influx that refineries would bring to a community should be at least a small bit of incentive.
There will be considerable resistance to this idea from environmental groups, among others, but should be done. There is also the fringe benefit of decentralizing our refining capabilities in case of future hurricanes/disasters along the Gulf Coast.
Clean Air Act? Yeah, man, that was a horrible mistake, you're right.
Jubbergun wrote:
3)Wind and Solar: These were highly touted in Carter's energy policy, but even now are mostly crap. T. Boone Pickens, a billionaire who made his money in the energy sector, attempted to build and operate a functional wind-farm...electric providers refused to tie into in because it wasn't reliable enough. The same thing happens with solar farms. This is not to say the technology should not be developed, but until it is reliable, we can't make them part of any workable energy policy.
Ok...and why do not Reagan and Bush deserve blame for this as well?
Jubbergun wrote:
4)Propane: Propane is readily produced and there is infrastructure already in place to support it, which makes it ideal for adoption it as a motor fuel. Currently, propane is used mostly for home heating and recreational devices. There is a large market, though, for propane as a fuel already, as it is commonly used to fuel forklifts and other specialty equipment.
Propane is a non-renewable resource and is both more dangerous and less efficient than gasoline. It is also much more expensive infrastructure-wise because it is a gas and not a fluid.
Jubbergun wrote:
5)Exploration/Recovery: Find it and drill it. Leaving ANWAR untouched because we don't want to schmutz up a frozen fucking tundra is retarded. There's no reason we can't gather resources without taking a piss on spotted owls, you fucking hippies.
Naturally occurring oil is not a renewable resource and it makes no sense to forever destroy land to postpone a problem for another few decades. While we continue to do so, our reliance increases, making the inevitable transition more difficult, and we continue to pay the health, safety and environmental costs associated with gas.
Your basic premise was that none of this getting done was Carter's fault. How is it more his fault than any other postwar president? Because of the Clean Air Act?
