Read and learn about history. Pick out a good one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_17
1091 – London tornado of 1091: A tornado thought to be of strength T8/F4 strikes the heart of London.
1956 – Bobby Fischer defeats Donald Byrne in the chess Game of the Century.
1973 – OPEC imposes an oil embargo against countries they deem to have helped Israel in the Yom Kippur War.
1979 – Mother Teresa is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_of_the_Century_(chess)
The Game of the Century is a famous chess game that was won by the 13-year-old future world champion Bobby Fischer against Donald Byrne in the Rosenwald Memorial Tournament at the Marshall Chess Club in New York City on October 17, 1956. In Chess Review, Hans Kmoch dubbed it "The Game of the Century" and wrote: "The following game, a stunning masterpiece of combination play performed by a boy of 13 against a formidable opponent, matches the finest on record in the history of chess prodigies."[1]
Donald Byrne (1930–1976) was one of the leading American chess masters at the time of this game. He won the 1953 U.S. Open Championship, and later represented the United States in the 1962, 1964, and 1968 Chess Olympiads.[2] He became an International Master in 1962, and probably would have risen further if not for ill health.[3] Robert "Bobby" Fischer (1943–2008) was at this time a promising junior facing one of his first real tests against master level opposition. His overall performance in the tournament was lukewarm,[4] but later he had a meteoric rise, winning the 1957 U.S. Open on tiebreaks, winning the 1957–58 U.S. (Closed) Championship (and all seven later championships in which he played), qualifying for the Candidates Tournament and becoming in 1958 the world's youngest grandmaster at the age of 15. He won the world championship in 1972, and is considered by many to be the greatest chess player of all time.
In this game, Fischer (playing Black) demonstrates noteworthy innovation and improvisation. Byrne (playing White), after a standard opening, makes a seemingly minor mistake on move 11, losing a tempo by moving the same piece twice. Fischer pounces with brilliant sacrificial play, culminating in a queen sacrifice on move 17. Byrne captures the queen, but Fischer gets far too much material for it – a rook, two bishops, and a pawn. At the end, Fischer's pieces coordinate to force checkmate, while Byrne's queen sits useless on the other side of the board.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa
| Consecrated religious, nun | |
|---|---|
| Saint Teresa of Calcutta Mother Teresa, MC | |
 | |
| Born | Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu 26 August 1910 Üsküp, Kosovo Vilayet, Ottoman Empire (present-day Skopje, North Macedonia) |
| Died | 5 September 1997 (aged 87) Calcutta, West Bengal, India (present-day Kolkata) |
| Venerated in | Roman Catholic Church |
| Beatified | 19 October 2003, Saint Peter's Square, Vatican City by Pope John Paul II |
| Canonized | 4 September 2016, Saint Peter's Square, Vatican City by Pope Francis |
| Major shrine | Mother House of the Missionaries of Charity, Kolkata, West Bengal, India |
| Feast | 5 September[1] |
| Attributes | |
| Patronage | |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis
'The 1973 oil crisis began in October 1973 when the members of the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries proclaimed an oil embargo. The embargo was targeted at nations perceived as supporting Israel during the Yom Kippur War.[1] The initial nations targeted were Canada, Japan, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States with the embargo also later extended to Portugal, Rhodesia and South Africa. By the end of the embargo in March 1974,[2] the price of oil had risen nearly 400%, from US$3 per barrel to nearly $12 globally; US prices were significantly higher. The embargo caused an oil crisis, or "shock", with many short- and long-term effects on global politics and the global economy.[3] It was later called the "first oil shock", followed by the 1979 oil crisis, termed the "second oil shock".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC
The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC, /ˈoʊpɛk/ OH-pek) is an intergovernmental organization of 14 nations, founded on 14 September 1960 in Baghdad by the first five members (Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela), and headquartered since 1965 in Vienna, Austria. As of September 2018, the then 14 member countries accounted for an estimated 44 percent of global oil production and 81.5 percent of the world's "proven" oil reserves, giving OPEC a major influence on global oil prices that were previously determined by the so called "Seven Sisters" grouping of multinational oil companies.
The stated mission of the organization is to "coordinate and unify the petroleum policies of its member countries and ensure the stabilization of oil markets, in order to secure an efficient, economic and regular supply of petroleum to consumers, a steady income to producers, and a fair return on capital for those investing in the petroleum industry."[4] The organization is also a significant provider of information about the international oil market. The current OPEC members are the following: Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, the Republic of the Congo, Saudi Arabia (the de facto leader), United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela. Indonesia and Qatar are former members.
The formation of OPEC marked a turning point toward national sovereignty over natural resources, and OPEC decisions have come to play a prominent role in the global oil market and international relations. The effect can be particularly strong when wars or civil disorders lead to extended interruptions in supply. In the 1970s, restrictions in oil production led to a dramatic rise in oil prices and in the revenue and wealth of OPEC, with long-lasting and far-reaching consequences for the global economy. In the 1980s, OPEC began setting production targets for its member nations; generally, when the targets are reduced, oil prices increase. This has occurred most recently from the organization's 2008 and 2016 decisions to trim oversupply.
https://www.thoughtco.com/us-and-middle-east-since-1945-2353681
Strategic Studies Quarterly♦Spring 2018 127Unbalanced: Rethinking America’s Commitment to the Middle East
As Andrew Bacevich notes, “From the end of World War II to 1980, virtually no American soldiers were killed in action while serving in that region. . . . Since 1990, virtually no American soldiers have been killed in action anywhereexceptin the Greater Middle East.”1 This level of commitment has produced consistently high US troop levels in the region and is the result of a grand strategy that argues for regional Emma Ashford is a research fellow in defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute in Washington, DC. She holds a PhD in politics from the University of Virginia and an MA from American University’s School of International Service. This article is based on a chapter in The Case for Restraint, being published that can help prevent conflict.
Yet too often, it is unclear what goals this military presence is intended to achieve, other than to satisfy vague invocations of the need for “engagement.” Worse, this presence is re- inforced by an all-encompassing approach predicated on the idea that the United States can (and should) seek to shape all aspects of the regional security environment, from regional alliances to domestic capacity and nation building via military, political, or economic development.This article explores the strategic context and challenges facing the United States in the Middle East and argues for a return to a strategy of offshore balancing. It argues that two of America’s most important Cold War–era interests in the region—anticommunism and energy security—have been rendered largely irrelevant by geopolitical and technological changes. Meanwhile, large-scale military force has consistently proven ineffectual at tackling modern interests like counterterrorism. As the regional strategic environment shifts, today’s comprehensive approachto the region also carries increasing risks: it enables dangerous behaviors by US allies, engenders moral hazard in local nondemocratic states, and ignores the regional interests of other great powers like China. The United States remains deeply involved in Middle Eastern affairs. Even the Obama administration, which came into office eager to com-plete a “pivot” toward Asia, failed to completely extricate America from Middle Eastern wars. In reality, the post–Cold War period has proved to be a costly lesson in the folly of trying to shape this region through mili-tary force. Despite the deaths of over 6,500 US service members (and an estimated 300,000 civilians) in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as costs of more than $3.4 trillion, the Middle East is no more stable, democratic, or prosperous than it was two decades ago.2 In fact, it is hard to argue that well-intentioned US involvement in the Middle East has not worsened regional outcomes. The war in Iraq destabilized that country, creating a decade-long insurgency that provided fertile ground for the rise of ISIS. It also fundamentally altered the regional balance of power. America’s inter-vention in Libya, initially hailed as a humanitarian triumph, spiraled into a lengthy civil war. Not all of today’s turmoil in the Middle East is the fault of US policy makers, but American attempts to reshape the region have too rarely achieved stated goals. A more restrained approach has the po-tential to bring American commitments and interests in the region back into balance after a long period of overcommitment.