Notices
Results 1 to 37 of 37

Thread: Iran Threatens To Shut Strait Of Hormuz Off

  1. #1 Iran Threatens To Shut Strait Of Hormuz Off 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    127
    Blast kills Iran nuclear expert amid "covert war"

    It seemed a clockwork killing: Motorcycle riders flashed by and attached a magnetic bomb onto a car carrying a nuclear scientist working at Iran's main uranium enrichment facility. By the time the blast tore apart the silver Peugeot, the bike was blocks away, weaving through Tehran traffic after what Iran calls the latest strike in an escalating covert war.
    More News



    TRENDING NOW




    Iran threatens to close key oil shipping lane Strait of Hormuz over ...




    Last edited by bryan; January 11th, 2012 at 10:08 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    127
    Please click THE PICTURE and watch video at bottom of page.If Iran shuts off the major oil way, it will start WW3.


    Last edited by bryan; January 11th, 2012 at 09:35 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    127
    Russia has already backed up irans intentions this is no joke,we just pulled are troops out of Iraq,Fort Victory is shut down.All out attack with are goverment in its crumbling state this could be very real.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by bryan View Post
    Please click and watch video at bottom of page.Iran shuts of the major oil way, it will start WW3
    Please provide a direct link to this video. I find nothing on the BBC, CNN. NBC or Reuters stating that Iran has shut off the Straits of Hormuz. Consequently your three posts in combination just sound ill informed and hysterical.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    127
    click picture it will go to direct link the oil ways are still open but the threat is there.I did not state that the oil way has been shut off.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bryan View Post
    Please click and watch video at bottom of page.Iran shuts of the major oil way, it will start WW3
    Please provide a direct link to this video. I find nothing on the BBC, CNN. NBC or Reuters stating that Iran has shut off the Straits of Hormuz. Consequently your three posts in combination just sound ill informed and hysterical.
    I stated with the current conditions that this is a real threat not hysterical ..no !!!! was added
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by bryan View Post
    I did not state that the oil way has been shut off.
    Yes you did.

    "Iran shuts of the major oil way, it will start WW3."

    You did not say if. I now understand that you meant to say if, but you did not. Anyway, there is not any speculation or serious threat that they will take such an action.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    127
    I hope your rite John.I really dont want to see a war break out just when my brother came home in a casket from Iraq.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D. stander-j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    854
    Quote Originally Posted by bryan View Post
    Russia has already backed up irans intentions this is no joke,we just pulled are troops out of Iraq,Fort Victory is shut down.All out attack with are goverment in its crumbling state this could be very real.
    Source for the Russian backing of Iran? I recall a Russian Today video I saw a while back - if that's what you're talking about, it was neither official nor a declaration of support for Iran. The General specifically stated that IF the USA sponsors an invasion, or invades, Iran they need to be think about all the possible consequences of invading a country that shares the Caspian, and is relatively close to Russia. While that can sound like it implies support for Iran it's doubtful. To me moreso sounds like such an outcome is possible, but mostly that Russia will be put in a awkward situation where it will both have to keep a wary eye on its borders as well as prepare for the possible problems it may cause for Russia.

    Having said this, Russia has also recently deployed a Battle-Carrier in.. I believe it was the Black Sea (Edit: more likely the Caspian come to think of it) that will now be doing routine patrols. This isn't something to fear. It's a natural response. They don't want the US getting into their territories so that they don't have to worry about being lumped in with the US come insurgency time. At least that's how I see it, a way for Russia to wash its hands of any association with the alleged operation.
    Last edited by stander-j; January 12th, 2012 at 11:56 AM.
    "Cultivated leisure is the aim of man."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    127
    United States invaded Iraq,Russia invaded Georgia.The U.S. was a good thousand miles away.
    Last edited by bryan; January 11th, 2012 at 11:32 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by bryan View Post
    I hope your rite John.I really dont want to see a war break out just when my brother came home in a casket from Iraq.
    I am sorry to hear of your loss, but try not to let it influence your objective assessment of what is happening. Firstly, this is likely the work of the Israelis and not the US. Secondly, this is the third Iranian nuclear scientist to be assassinated in this way and Iran took no overt action before. I suggest that excitable reactions of the kind you've offered here create a climate that increases the risk of war. Sober, level headed people rarely fight.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    127
    I understand whats being said and will not influnce this subject anymore.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by bryan View Post
    I understand whats being said and will not influnce this subject anymore.
    It was not my intention to stop your contribution. It was my intention to persuade you that there was no necessity for panic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    127
    My friend,the Irans will by all means keep on there production timeline no matter how many scientist die.The question is how far will they go and how far will Israel take there actions towards Iran.Pretty much a bad situation all the way around.You know as I do the ramifications if Iran shuts The Strait of Hormuz off.It wont be a day out in the park with the kids.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    127
    Lets hope your rite on the level headedness of both sides..^.^
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,322
    Iran's been making threat about that since 1979. They have virtually no capacity to shut off the straights or keep it that way more than a few days in the face of a significant US military presence not in Iraq...but in the US 5th fleet fleet based just South of the Persian Gulf.

    It's a hollow threat only meaningful for Clancy Novels and I guess political posturing among Republican Candidates.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    893
    Bryan,
    I am sorry to hear of your loss, a lot of families, both sides of the Atlantic have been touched by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Iranian threat to close the Straits of Hormuz is nothing new, but not to worry. The Royal Navy is sending a cool piece of kit down there, in the name of HMS Daring.

    http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/The-Flee...ers/HMS-Daring

    Forgot the link to HMS Daring.
    Last edited by Dave Wilson; January 12th, 2012 at 07:24 AM.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by bryan View Post
    My friend,the Irans will by all means keep on there production timeline no matter how many scientist die.The question is how far will they go and how far will Israel take there actions towards Iran.Pretty much a bad situation all the way around.You know as I do the ramifications if Iran shuts The Strait of Hormuz off.It wont be a day out in the park with the kids.
    Isreal hiding under the USA's skirt and throwing rocks at people (exploding rocks, in this case) could definitely make our lives miserable if they keep going. I wish the USA had a demonstrated ability to abandon them when they push their diplomatic position too far. We're in that awkward situation of a parent who's teenager is totally out of control. We can't set boundaries on them, and we're likely going to get dragged into whatever trouble they kick up for themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Iran's been making threat about that since 1979. They have virtually no capacity to shut off the straights or keep it that way more than a few days in the face of a significant US military presence not in Iraq...but in the US 5th fleet fleet based just South of the Persian Gulf.

    It's a hollow threat only meaningful for Clancy Novels and I guess political posturing among Republican Candidates.
    Yeah. One could fill the page with "LOL@" the thought of the Iranian Navy standing up the US and British Navies. It's pretty difficult to wage a successful "insurgency" on the water, so our one (and probably only) disadvantage would be absent in this case.

    Also, if we should decide to invade and want to avoid the problem of insurgency altogether, we should simply avoid taking Tehran. Blow up the rest of their infrastructure, totally annihilate their military, but ultimately leave the existing government intact for a while in a long seige. That way we're always dealing with one main faction, instead of a thousand splintered factions. We can just continue to humiliate them in front of their people until they make the concessions we want to sign a peace treaty. (That way the people see Tehran as being equally at fault as we are for the continued bloodshed while they're dicking around trying to avoid our concessions that would end the violence.)
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    127
    My main concern other than Iran is to the North of Iran,Take a look back in history.What started World War 2




    wiki.answers.com › ... › HistoryWar and Military HistoryWorld War 2Cached - Similar We need to grapple the ripple effect that is.We are very lucky not to have a world war already...with all thats been seen and done from actions taken in the past should have resulted in a world war.The reason for this not to have happen is countries substainability since WWII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson View Post
    Bryan,
    I am sorry to hear of your loss, a lot of families, both sides of the Atlantic have been touched by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Iranian threat to close the Straits of Hormuz is nothing new, but not to worry. The Royal Navy is sending a cool piece of kit down there, in the name of HMS Daring.

    HMS Daring| Royal Navy

    Forgot the link to HMS Daring.
    Its a beast of technology and design,well suited for the seas.Thanks very much for the insight.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,322
    Its a beast of technology and design,well suited for the seas.Thanks very much for the insight.
    And quite likely comes with the most important weapon of all, which Western nations have in spades compared to the Arabic Middle Eastern ones--training.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Although Iran could not exactly close the Straights of Hormuz, they could probably sink a tanker or two - which would have the effect of closing it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    OMG. This is the first time it has ever occurred to me. Iraq's cited reason for attacking Kuwait was horizontal drilling. Sadaam is dead. So.... probably Kuwait is busy drilling Iraqi oil as we speak. We didn't shut the oil fields down after all!.

    Anyway, losing Kuwait and any oil pipelines in Saudi Arabia that lead to the North is pretty much the sum of what's at stake isn't it? And Iran would lose a lot of oil revenues as well.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,322
    Anyway, losing Kuwait and any oil pipelines in Saudi Arabia that lead to the North is pretty much the sum of what's at stake isn't it? And Iran would lose a lot of oil revenues as well.
    Yes. That is the essence of their threat, if there's a sanction of their oil exports through the gulf, then they'll close the gulf for everyone.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Yes. That is the essence of their threat, if there's a sanction of their oil exports through the gulf, then they'll close the gulf for everyone.
    Oh dear. It would be just like the Oil Companies (US ones, I mean) to lobby for that. A sanction on Iranian oil exports when gasoline is still over $3.00 a gallon!?!?!?!?

    Are Americans really foolish enough to vote for that? Does anyone learn basic economics in high school anymore? Or maybe we're just becoming sado-masochists.

    Probably most of the US oil companies doing the lobby don't actually get their oil from Iran. So if they can shut off Iran's exports, but leave their own suppliers alone, the price at the pump will go back up, and whatever deals they have with the remaining suppliers will increase in value. The rest of the USA will get screwed (as we're getting accustomed to be nowadays.)
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Also, if we should decide to invade and want to avoid the problem of insurgency altogether, we should simply avoid taking Tehran. Blow up the rest of their infrastructure, totally annihilate their military, but ultimately leave the existing government intact for a while in a long seige. That way we're always dealing with one main faction, instead of a thousand splintered factions. We can just continue to humiliate them in front of their people until they make the concessions we want to sign a peace treaty. (That way the people see Tehran as being equally at fault as we are for the continued bloodshed while they're dicking around trying to avoid our concessions that would end the violence.)
    Because that worked so well in Iraq, after Gulf War I, we'll do it again? Or wait a minute - Korea, Korea is where it worked. No? Hold on, I'm thinking - Germany, after WWI, that's the place. No, wait, Cuba - see, even Castro admits the success of our strategy there.

    We'll do like with Cuba.
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Probably most of the US oil companies doing the lobby don't actually get their oil from Iran.
    Interesting history there - Halliburton had a sweet deal set up back in Cheney's CEO days, with the rest of the US competition excluded, but something went wrong.

    The major problem with Iran seems to be, the appearances suggest, its stubborn refusal to cooperate with certain well-connected oil companies. If these guys can get Iran actually bombed on some excuse or another - take their market-interfering supply out of the picture, as with Iraq - that would be the next best thing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    597
    Iran does seem to be a significant risk area. However, conflict can break out in other areas of the world from what seems like a small event.

    There is a paragraph in a book called "The Psychology of War" that discuses the international scene just before the start of WW I. LeShan notes that at that time, international trade and travel were at an all time high, just before the start of the greatest war in history up until that time.

    Some systems seem to build up "stressors" over time that eventually become released in a "cascade" or "avalanche" all of a sudden. War may work like that.

    So although from our perspective the Iran region looks like the most dangerous potential flash point right now, whether or not war actually occurs may depend on the level of some unseen "stressor".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,322
    Probably most of the US oil companies doing the lobby don't actually get their oil from Iran.
    Oil is a global commodity. Interruptions anywhere cause world wide price hikes, it doesn't matter one whit where the oil comes from that get refined into the actual gas in your tank.

    I also happen to think Iran is not nearly a volatile as most of us think. If anything their leadership is extremely reserved and pragmatic, though probably determined to get the best inoculation from Western attack possible--development of nuke weapons.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; January 17th, 2012 at 02:05 AM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    When was the last time Iran started a war with anyone? Has to be something like a hundred years ago - this list shows no aggression since WWI or before: The History Guy: The Wars of Iran and Persia

    They are pretty obviously not an inherently aggressive or violence minded people, at least not on a national scale.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,322
    Sustaining others wars has been their style.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    Sustaining others wars has been their style.
    And despite having the means and motive, they haven't even been doing much of that - and almost none of it aggressive.

    By record and evidence, Iran is one of the most peaceful nations on the planet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,322
    BC Ice...much like your Vietnam comments you don't have a clue about history. I served with men who faught in the Charge of the Knights, a large Iraqi operation that drove Iranian backed militia and defecting Iraqi units from the City of Basra. I've lost friends to Iranian rockets and had my sleep abruptly interrupted by the crash of them on my base and personally been on patrol where their rockets were recovered. Supplying, equipping weapons, providing a safe heaven for insurgents and taking over border Iraqi oil wells is hardly what most people would consider "peaceful." They are pragmatic enough not to do anything to draw us into a direct war (most likely), but they are very active in what we call asymmetric warfare against us and our partners in the region.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    BC Ice...much like your Vietnam comments you don't have a clue about history. I served with men who faught in the Charge of the Knights, a large Iraqi operation that drove Iranian backed militia and defecting Iraqi units from the City of Basra. I've lost friends to Iranian rockets and had my sleep abruptly interrupted by the crash of them on my base and personally been on patrol where their rockets were recovered. Supplying, equipping weapons, providing a safe heaven for insurgents and taking over border Iraqi oil wells is hardly what most people would consider "peaceful." They are pragmatic enough not to do anything to draw us into a direct war (most likely), but they are very active in what we call asymmetric warfare against us and our partners in the region.
    And none of that is aggression - you are the attacking, aggressive, invasive force. The border involved is hostile, a scene of conflict involving Iran for decades now, largely because of your country's aggression and instigation. Your forces harbor, arm, and support "insurgents" within Iran, and have for a generation of continual hostility. Your country blockades Iran, sanctions Iran, threatens Iran, stations armies on Iran's borders, overflies Iran with military aircraft, sends spies into Iran.

    You make war on Iran, a continent away from your borders, and blame Iran for the lack of peace?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Also, if we should decide to invade and want to avoid the problem of insurgency altogether, we should simply avoid taking Tehran. Blow up the rest of their infrastructure, totally annihilate their military, but ultimately leave the existing government intact for a while in a long seige. That way we're always dealing with one main faction, instead of a thousand splintered factions. We can just continue to humiliate them in front of their people until they make the concessions we want to sign a peace treaty. (That way the people see Tehran as being equally at fault as we are for the continued bloodshed while they're dicking around trying to avoid our concessions that would end the violence.)
    Because that worked so well in Iraq, after Gulf War I, we'll do it again? Or wait a minute - Korea, Korea is where it worked. No? Hold on, I'm thinking - Germany, after WWI, that's the place. No, wait, Cuba - see, even Castro admits the success of our strategy there.

    We'll do like with Cuba.
    The irony is.... it did work in Iraq. It totally worked. Sadaam completely abandoned his efforts to create biological or nuclear weapons, or attack other nations. He waffled a bit about oil for food (trying to pay off debts), but that did nothing but benefit us in the USA (not US oil companies of course, just us ordinary citizens benefited.)

    The only reason Desert Storm appears even slightly ineffective is because

    1) - It was dressed up to appear that way by the Bush administration.

    2) - Sadaam wasn't actually taken out of power.

    If we invaded Iran with the goal of taking the Mullahs who rule Iran out of power, we'd have an insurgency 100 times as determined as that in Iraq, because they're popular (while Sadaam was anything but popular.) The better option is to invade with the goal of demanding concessions by treaty, but ultimately leave them in charge. (An even better option is simply to not invade, but you know....)


    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Probably most of the US oil companies doing the lobby don't actually get their oil from Iran.
    Oil is a global commodity. Interruptions anywhere cause world wide price hikes, it doesn't matter one whit where the oil comes from that get refined into the actual gas in your tank.
    That is the reality we as consumers face. That's why Sadaam violating oil for food was so good for us. Because it doesn't matter where the increase in supply comes from either.

    For US oil companies, it does matter where the interruption occurs. If their own supply is not endangered, but someone else's supply is yes endangered, then they get to charge more money to pump the same number of barrels. For them, prices going up is almost always a good thing. Oil is a unique commodity in that raising its price does very little to prevent or reduce sales so long as it stays below a certain threshold.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    The only reason Desert Storm appears even slightly ineffective is because

    1) - It was dressed up to appear that way by the Bush administration.

    2) - Sadaam wasn't actually taken out of power.
    And of course Saddam was not only still firmly in power and equipped with a serious military etc, but 1) not being blamed for the effects of the sanctions, or humiliated, and 2) about to take his country's oil to the Euro and thereby not only break the sanctions irretrievably but possibly take the dollar with them.

    We can add 3) no longer an ally in our ongoing troubles with Iran.

    Meanwhile Iran has not been a threat to attack other nations since before WWI, and has no apparent plans otherwise, so what would we gain?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bryan View Post
    I understand whats being said and will not influnce this subject anymore.
    It was not my intention to stop your contribution. It was my intention to persuade you that there was no necessity for panic.
    True, the time for panic has passed- now is the time to fret about global warming.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,322
    If we invaded Iran with the goal of taking the Mullahs who rule Iran out of power, we'd have an insurgency 100 times as determined as that in Iraq, because they're popular (while Sadaam was anything but popular.)
    Saddam was pretty popular with about half the country--the rest of course hated him.

    But you are right the counter insurgency would probably be far more problematic, not due to popularity of the leadership, but due to the popularity of the religion. Saddam was Baathist, a secular movement(despite being created by a Christian) based mostly on Arab nationalism--generally secular movements aren't nearly as pervasive as religious ones.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Iran Threatens To Shut Off Major Oil Way
    By bryan in forum In the News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: January 11th, 2012, 11:47 PM
  2. Someone shut Cobserst up
    By Darius in forum Site Feedback
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: September 13th, 2009, 12:19 PM
  3. Iran
    By B1AZE in forum Military Technology
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: January 7th, 2009, 01:32 AM
  4. Put up or shut up on global warming
    By scpg02 in forum In the News
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: August 11th, 2007, 08:43 AM
  5. NASA Budget Crisis Threatens Space Telescopes
    By cleft in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: May 23rd, 2005, 02:24 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •