...
Sorry for my late answer, I only saw your post now. You'll find Nixon's order (the one that matter) here.
First, let me add that this plan isn't especially complicated or clever : the USSR was the number one oil producer at the time, and it was producing so much to pay its bills. Both fact were not hard to find, and it's rather logical that cutting its revenue would cause a lot of trouble.
This unsettles me as OPEC, which Saudi Arabia was a part of, actually increased prices for some time, which makes me question how much control the US had over them
My hypotethis doesn't require a lot of control. None in fact : the communists were threathening the very fundation of the Saudi, Quatari... power, and I cannot imagine that they (the Saudi) took the fall of the Sha of Iran lightly. They needed an answer and they needed it quickly.
That's more then you cite, because you don't cite.
I don't cite because I have nothing to cite. I noticed that the USSR felt mostly because of the fall of crude oil price, and most importantly now that we need Russia weakened again, the oil prices fall again. I dug a bit, saw that it was mostly the US allie's doing and that they were supported and protected no matter what ever since. I then came to the conclusion that it was probably deliberate, since it was easy to plan and easy to implement.
I can easilly imagine any think thank coming up with that plan. It may have been an accident, but I don't think so.
Easy to plan and implement is not the standard by which we prove that something
actually happened, it's how we prove it
could have happened. How would you know that it would even occur to the US to use Oil prices? Look, have you ever wondered why bicycles originally had extremely unequal wheel sizes, instead of the
obviously more reasonable way we have them now? Because hindsight is 20-20. Your only proof is based on
truthiness: on the fact that it
feels right. Please, I am not so smart, I must have things explained out to me. Let us just say that I don't see your point. I'm simply not smart enough to understand you. Could you, for my benefit, explain why you are probably right?
Remember, a vote for Vermin Supreme is a vote wasted.
Or that 'THE RENT IS TOO DAMN HIGH!' guy with the cool beard style several election cycles back.
Really though, it would be great if serious third party candidates actually had a chance, that way a vote for a third party candidate (whether they're a serious candidate or not) won't be a throwaway vote.
Why would a third party vote matter? I mean think about it: you'd still have to vote for someone who has the resources and broad popularity to actually win, or by damn you will
always be throwing your vote away, just for a new name.
I've been thinking more about this whole three-party thing, and honestly I don't see that three parties is inherently better in any way. America went through its best and worst times with two serious parties (except the civil war, they had more parties; Great time for america too), and I don't see how jamming some other one would fix anything; that is to say, I doubt some magical surge in the Constitution or Green parties, or some great split in the Democratic or Republican parties, would somehow fix America, the political system, the world, and/or anything. Convince me Bay12.