Iran to install 3,000 centrifuges in response to UN sanctions

With luck they'll blow themselves up in the process of celebrating their nuclearisation.

The Bush Administration cannot permit the Iraniain project to go forward. If it has any sense at all, any sense of domestic politics, it must know that the fiasco of Tarbaby Iraq makes it impossible for the next administration to take decisive action in time. For because of Tarbaby Iraq, because of bewilderment over the notion of "victory," because of the obvious ludicrousness or preventing two sides both of whom dislike or hate us from damaging each other, because the rhetoric of "ordinary moms and dads in the Middle East" just won't do, because the refusal to discuss Jihad, and the actual contents of Islam, and the threat of demographic conquest and Dawa in Western Europe can no longer be ignored by the Administration but is being ignored by the Adminisetration, because of all this, the candidate who will win in 2008 will be the candidate who behaves like Eisenhower in 1952 (the Eisenhower who promised that "I will go to Korea" while poor Adlai Stevenson could not, being forced to be loyal to Truman, could publicly promise no such thing) and ends the American military presence in Iraq, which even if decided upon at once, will take many months to achieve. And no new administration will conceivably be able, during an American withdrawal, to attack -- from the air, only from the air -- Iran's nuclear installations.

This is what one wishes to know. Does the presence of American troops in Iraq, a country now crawling, in the Shi'a regions, with sympathizers of Iran and even agents of Iran, make it more or less likely that the Administration will do what it must do, what takes precedence over everything else right now -- which is to destroy or at least to severely damage that nuclear project.

And this must be done, no matter what temporary rise in rally-round-the-regime nationalism in Iran might ensue. It is the actual weaponry that counts, not the regime. For if Khomeini could follow the Shah (who wanted nuclear weapons, and the Americans did not seem to object, and had the Shah obtained them, they would then have been inherited by the Khomeini regime), then eve if tomorrow the Shah's son or those sharing his views were to assume power in Iran, at a later date sons-of-Khomeini might take power from the son-of-the-Shah.

Question for the Administration and the Public:

Does the presence of American troops, hostages to those Iranian sympathizers and Iranian agents, make more, or make less likely, action against Iran?

Because if that presence makes such action less likely, then the fisaco is complete, and tbere is nothing further, m'lud, to add.

The Security Council decided saturday that Iran must suspend the “proliferation sensitive nuclear activities,” including all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities and work on all heavy water-related projects. Both these steps are to be verified by the IAEA.

The Council banned trade with Iran of all items, materials, equipment, goods and technology which could contribute to the country's enrichment-related, reprocessing or heavy water-related activities, or to the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems.

States are also required to prevent the provision to Iran of any technical assistance or training, financial assistance, investment, brokering or other services, and the transfer of financial resources or services, related to the supply, sale, transfer, manufacture or use of the prohibited items, materials, equipment, goods and technology.

The Council called on all States “to exercise vigilance regarding the entry into or transit through their territories of individuals who are engaged in, directly associated with or providing support for Iran's proliferation sensitive nuclear activities or for the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems.”

The resolution contains a list of persons and entities involved with Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programmes that are subject to a freeze on their financial assets, with some exceptions built in. It also established a new Committee to monitor compliance with its terms, add to the lists and rule on any exemptions.

The IAEA Director-General was requested to report within 60 days to the Council on whether Iran has suspended uranium enrichment activities. If that report shows that Iran has not complied with the resolution, the Council threatens “further appropriate measures.”

I guessit proves the truth of this, which I earlier posted on Dhimmi Watch:

So the end of 2006 is almost upon us. One thing we do know about 2006 is that it has become a year of craven cowardice and kowtowing towards our Islamic enemies. We have had bad years before, but none have seemed as bad as the year just ending, and even more foreboding, 2007 has all the makings of an even worse year, especially with Pelosi’s new broom sweeping in come mid-January.

2006 was a year when the Jihadis exposed us in the West for what we are, and for what ails us. It was proved beyond all doubt that we have straw men and women for leaders and wannabe leaders, and a wimpish population that would rather see our own harmed than any enemy of ours, however mortal it may be. Suppose you walked through a Victorian cemetery, and thought about what those interred there, say 125 years ago, would make of our world if they could come back to life for just one month, and see it. Whilst they’d marvel at our technological advances, they’d also cringe at our cravenness in the face of the Jihadis. They lived in an era where we put our own first, and had no squeamishness about killing our sworn enemies in droves. They took pride in our might and our ability to make it count. They would have felt ashamed of our PC-induced defeatism and would certainly have known how to deal with the Galloways and Jihadis of this world.

Few events of 2006 left a nastier taste in the mouth than the Israel versus Hizbollah (and the dysfunctional Left, Human Rights Watch, the Western MSM, certain church leaders and Amnesty International) struggle. Because the Israelis dared to try to defend themselves against a 4,000-rocket barrage, the response of the entire West was to show cravenness way beyond anything seen at Munich towards these terrorists, and a Jew-hatred worthy of Hitler’s Cabinet. No president since Carter has fallen farther or faster in such a short time as Bush, who along with Condoleeza Rice, urged a ‘proportionate’ response in the face of this onslaught. A chance to destroy a sworn terrorist enemy passed us by, thanks to this supreme act of folly, and now as we leave 2006, we are left grovelling supinely at the feet of an emboldened Syria and an Iran on the verge of going nuclear, firmly in hoc to the tyrants who govern them, and proved Bin Laden’s assessment of the West to be true – that we are the weak horse and we don’t have the staying power. What a contrast to 2001 when it looked as if we were about to start taking the fight against the civilization-destroying terrorists seriously. But we didn’t reckon with the destructive terrorist-loving Left, the human rights activists, or the inadequacies of our own politicians. Our submission to the howling and baying mobs of placard-wielding Muslims with their crude beheading messages early in the year over a few cartoons was a foreboding harbinger of things to come, and it has been depressingly downhill from there.

All in all, this leaves little to be optimistic about in the New Year.

A point those who oppose attacking Iranian nuclear sites always make is that we can't hit all the nuclear sites in Iran and then there are so many more sites whose location is unknown. Also, that these sites (known and unknown)are built deep underground.

However, we keep reading about the Natanz nuclear site. We see satellite photos of it and are told that this is where alot of uraniaum enrichment takes place. I guess it is possible that the Natanz site is a ruse, a fake, just something built to present an aerial photo--with activity of people and vehicles going in and out.

It is also possible that Natanz is not a fake, but is the real thing--a major, maybe the major, nuclear reprocessing site in Iran. If that is the case, then it can be destroyed or heavily damaged. It is also possible that detroying this one site may significantly set back the Iranian program for many years.

Further, since the facility is underground, it may have to rely on air handling equipment from somewhere, usually above ground. If you polute the area--not even with nuclear, but just with smoke, what would happen down below?

If Natanz is for real, and is as extensive as portrayed, imagine all the Iranian and foreign nuclear scientists working there? Striking Natanz could be one big disincentive to being a nuclear scientist in Iran.

Further if we are talking about destroying and/or damaging just one nuclear site in Iran--Natanz--then the possibility of Israel carrying out that strike becomes more feasible.

Spirit Of 1683:

As much as I hate to, I feel I have to agree with your well written comments. I still have hope that America will come around, but Like you I worry that the dhimmitude will take hold even more as the wrong headed kind of Democrats will be sitting in chairmanships in our congress.

In point of fact, Ahmad was boasting they'd fab & install the 3000 centrifuges by the years-end at an earlier date which was reported December 9th: Ahmadinejad: Iran expands uranium enrichment program

Iran said earlier this year that it intends to move toward large-scale uranium enrichment involving 3,000 centrifuges by late 2006, and then expand the program to 54,000 centrifuges, which spin uranium gas into enriched material to produce nuclear fuel.

While blowing-smoke on the centrifuge issue, Ahmad has definately gone over-the-top - I'd suggest reading the FARS News Agencies article, President: UNSC will soon Regret, which differs significantly from the story reported by Al Bawaba.

I'd certainly expect the violence to increase by significant levels of magnitude inside Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan; with a real possibility that current government in Iraq might rollover as a satellite state of Iran and demand our departure.

uptil now the US and Israeli have shown so much restraint as to appear weak, but make no mind, the US military is the most powerful, and could level every government building and nuclear site in iran into dust within a few short days or hours. they are holding their trump cards for what we cannot know. but will break the camel's back?

A question for Robert, Hugh or really anybody: Is there a reason why(the West) we expect Iran to abide by **cough, cough** 'international law' which is the law of man and as they say, 'Not in the Qur'an?'

Is there any precedence?

uptil now the US and Israeli have shown so much restraint as to appear weak, but make no mind, the US military is the most powerful, and could level every government building and nuclear site in iran into dust within a few short days or hours. they are holding their trump cards for what we cannot know. but will break the camel's back?

As Geoff Boycott said during the ongoing Ashes cricket series against the Aussies (which we're now 3-0 down in with the Ashes lost), its time to stop talking about what we're going to do, and start doing it. We've spent the shole of the last two years or more talking up a good gamne, and now its time to play a good game. For too long, it has been all talk and no action, and its long past time to see the beef.

OT

I am just reporting that the UK's channel 4 went ahead with the full veiled muslimina as an alternative to the Queens speech, interspersed between her Islamic propaganda & taqyia were a multitude of coffins draped in the Union Jack, unless we didnt get the message.

To all those that live in Britain, your country is lost if you do not stand up and reject this type of enemy propaganda.

This paragraph is to the liberal left wing turn coats who are running channel 4. You may think you are being progressive and cool but take note the country is watching and you will be the first up against the wall. We know where you stand and it is with the enemy.

Merry Christmas all.

Some people think Iran already has nuclear capabilities, and that is the reason for Beasty Boy Dinnerjackets bravado. 'If you mess with us, we will give you such a slap'. Concentrating troops in Iraq and sending warships into the gulf could make for one dandy slap.
Of course, any action like that from Iran, will eliminate any chance it has for regional domination.
It will cease to exist in its present form.

Some other people think as icedragon does above.
I dont think Shia will destroy Shia deliberatly, as in Bombing Tehran and then blaming America. Muslims are not supposed to kill muslims, that is haram, according to the all knowing Allah. At least Shiites are not supposed to kill Shiites and Sunni's are not supposed to kill Sunni's, but it is ok if Sunni's and Shia kill each other. And even if they did such a stupid thing, who is going to be our enemy that is not already our enemy, and
who is going to war against us, that is not already waring against us?
It is probably a fact that the Ummah would foam at the mouth and rage over it, but responsible countrys and leaders would know better. Those who want to remain irrisponsible can get smacked down with the rest of them.
At any rate, watch for a mass 'vacation' of high Iranian officials and clerics. If hundreds of then suddenly book flights to Can-Cun, we can start worrying.

This UN insanity has gone far enough! Our enemy is booting up his weapons. Either we or Israel must strike Iran down full force RIGHT NOW we will face the terrible prospect of millions of our citizens dying in a horrific nuclear first srike. We can no longer afford silly political correctness. Our own lives and the lives of our countries are now in mortal danger. There is no time left to lose..........

Spirit of 1683, your post above is outstanding and so true. It is depressing how the Bush Administration has squandered all opportunities and instead has placed us in further danger and deeper down the hole. I hope our next leader has the strength and courage to do what needs to be done in our fight against Islamic terror.

Merry Christmas to all, and a Happy Birthday to our Lord and Saviour Jesus!

The west must realize, there is no deterrent to Iran's idealology. Iran is not deterrable as was the Soviet Union. Those days are gone.

fear will cover the people of Iraq and Baghdad; swift death (will
occur) there and there will be a loss of property, lives and harvests;
http://www.al-islam.org/masoom/bios/12thimam.html .) A black wind will blow in Baghdad, (33) An earthquake shall occur in Baghdad where a greater portion of the city will collapse, (34) fear will encompass the inhabitants of Iraq, (35) death will swiftly overtake the people of Iraq http://www.al-shia.com/html/eng/books/history/al_mahdi(a.s.)/45.htm ...Iran thinks it can make the Mahdi appear...It should be a warning to our troops.

The following link discusses the issue of whether Iran may have gotten bombs in 1991.

How the Soviets gave the Mullahs the Bomb

"1991: A top-secret report from the newly formed Russian intelligence service claims that Iran has obtained at least two nuclear warheads from a batch listed as missing from Kazakhstan. The nuclear weapons were reportedly smuggled across the border to Iran in 1991 and are under the control of Reza Amrollahi, who is head of the Iranian Organization for Atomic Energy and is also in charge of recruiting atomic scientists from the former Soviet Union. Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev is believed to have engineered the weapons deal with Iran, exchanging warheads for hard currency or gasoline. US officials have denied aid to Kazakhstan based on the belief that Kazakhstan has nuclear ambitions.

—Roger Fallgot and Jan Mather, "Iran Has N-Bomb," The European, 30 April-3 May 1992, p. 1."

At the time of possible acquisition, 1991, the bombs may already have been old. If they were 10 years old then, they are 25 years old now.

Bombs don't have an infinite life. They have to be remanufactured. Their design life may be 20 to 25 years, but this is not a guarantee.

Design life of 20 to 25 years is standard.

W76 remanufacture

Initially manufactured in 1978, the remanufacture of the w76 starts in 2007. If Iran has a couple warheads from 1978, it would need to remanufacture them in 2007. To do that it needs weapon grade enriched uranium.

Old Atlantic l think you are correct in that those warheads from '78 would need upgrading, if they are not already useless. could they not make a "dirty bomb" out of them?

Boo Hoo,
This was the worst year ever? Well I suppose if you have been on the Earth for only a short while that would be true. There are hundreds of events taking place worldwide, the struggle, after 30+ years of ignoring it has finally begun. But wait, its not all going my way so what do I do? Start talking about how truly bad things are by focusing on a few events where the central players have been totally discredited, that will do the trick. I see the opposite, the anti-jihad voices that I have NEVER heard before all over the radio and increasing on tv and with guvment officials. The dhimmis are exposing themselves everyday yet there is no benefit to this? With an attitude like that you are sure to lose, even before you have begun. The anti-jihad is being ratcheted up and the jihadists can see that they too must increase their efforts to keep pace. I see desperation in them and that is leading to mistakes (flying imam circus). While 2006 may not have been a banner year, it has by no means been the worst.

Resolutions..geez lets see, how many "resolutions" were there against Iraq, and folks only *thought* they had WMD..was it 17 ? and the UN still did not want to do anything to them(him)..Iran will pull the trigger long before these buffons at the UN do a thing, and why should Iran give a rip, the "resolution" against them states no military will be used to enforce said "resolutions".

after all the flack president Bush has recieved from all sides for attacking iraq. i dont see him doing much about Iran!
the left wont permit it, the un wont permit it, the dhimmicrats wont permit it! and everyone will blame president Bush for not doing anything when iran finally nukes america or israel!
the dhimmicrats and the un and the world wants to know what reason Bush had for attacking iraq, iraq done america no harm!
you think the dhimmis and the un will sit still and permit Bush to attack iran for simply running of their mouth?
i say if we dont stop condemning Bush for his efforts then we will deserve the next coward dhimmicrat president we elect!

From above: the dhimmicrats and the un and the world wants to know what reason Bush had for attacking iraq, Iraq done america no harm!

I dont know that Saddam did the US 'no harm'. But it would be interesting to know the 'real' reason Bush attacked. All the popular reasons 'it's the oil stupid', dont really hold up, WMD's have not held up, forcing democrasy on Iraq, and making it a M.E. roll model has not held up. While terrorist connections are there, no one wants to admit to them, so they have not held up either. Getting rid of Saddam held up, but it is a weak reason. So just what is the 'real' reason...possibly the 'real' reason is already accomplished, and the rest is a cover up. Who knows...Bush works in strange and mysterious ways...mostly strange and mysterious...

Waaaaay OT...

but did you folks notice that Google can't even bring itself to put up a tiny Christmas tree on Christmas??

Instead they've had these 2 kangaroos up there... WTF ?

"Old Atlantic l think you are correct in that those warheads from '78 would need upgrading, if they are not already useless. could they not make a "dirty bomb" out of them?"
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess"

Good point, I hadn't thought of that. If they can't get new weapons grade enriched uranium, which they are desperate to do quickly, then they could settle for a dirty bomb.

From above: the dhimmicrats and the un and the world wants to know what reason Bush had for attacking iraq, Iraq done america no harm!

I dont know that Saddam did the US 'no harm'. But it would be interesting to know the 'real' reason Bush attacked. All the popular reasons 'it's the oil stupid', dont really hold up, WMD's have not held up, forcing democrasy on Iraq, and making it a M.E. roll model has not held up. While terrorist connections are there, no one wants to admit to them, so they have not held up either. Getting rid of Saddam held up, but it is a weak reason. So just what is the 'real' reason...possibly the 'real' reason is already accomplished, and the rest is a cover up. Who knows...Bush works in strange and mysterious ways...mostly strange and mysterious...

Posted by: duh_swami

>>> president bushs' first reason for attacking iraq was the only reason needed
less we all forget bush stated on sept.12,2001 the axis of evil ,iraq iran and n.korea would be targets!
the only reason needed for attackiong iraq was the one president bush stated on sept.12,2001 to attack those muslim countrys that harbor and give aid to terrorist to attack america and to show the muslim world exactly what the cost would be for any muslim country for attacking america!
most americans dont seem to comprerehend that al qaeda is not a terrorist organization made of of muslims from any single muslim country, they come from every muslim country on earth as well as from some nonmuslim countries like american and britain!
we constantly are reminded that it was 19 saudis that hijacked those planes not iraqis, osama could have used 20 hijackers from america or britain or jordan or palestine or egypt or kuwait, etc etc. he had a purpose for using saudis, he wanted to cause a rift between america and saudi to cause saudi to force america out of saudi, america has a military base in sausdi, thats a big no no in islamic beliefs!
to have an infidel military base in islams holiest lands is the biggest slap in the face to islam!

Referring to the western officials' remarks about Iran's further isolation in case of defying UNSC demands, the Iranian president said that the West is just dreaming and added, "They don't pay attention that they are forced into recluse and that they don't even have any place among their own nations"- pointing to the results of the recent midterm legislative elections in the US.

Ahmadinejad reiterated that his country has now turned into an established nuclear state irrespective of the West's opposition or agreement in this regard, saying that it is in the interest of the western countries to live along a nuclear Iran.
this sounds like Iran's nut job, president is making a threat, and if they do have have Soviet surplus they could have had them remanufactured in North Korea, and they do have some intermediate range ballistic missiles and we are dealing with a tribal culture less than 75 years ago was running around in the desert and the tribe with the most firepower was the rulers and they do not seem to understand just what atomic bombs can do. And from the way, Iran's president is acting and the fact Irans religious, leaders think they have the ear of Allahthey could well think that , one missile targeted. On Washington, DC will cause the USA to cave in and except Islam as a state religion and sharia law in our land, well as Admiral Yamato said after the attack on Pearl Harbor. I fear all we have done is awake, a sleeping giant and fill him with a resolve and Iran's thug in. chief needs to remember this

Posted by: thndrbang1; president bushs' first reason for attacking iraq was the only reason needed
less we all forget bush stated on sept.12,2001 the axis of evil ,iraq iran and n.korea would be
targets!

He has had almost six years to attack or invade Iran and N Korea. What do you think he is waiting for?

Boy thndrbangl, I'm glad you have Bush figured out. its a tough job but someone has to do it.
Maybe you can tell me why he has been negotiating with Canada and Mexico, in semi-secret, to erase the borders and create one superstate. All without public impute, or a vote of the people, or even the approval of congress....inquiring minds want to know..

Gosh- didn't see this reaction happening- Whoda thunk it? Oh yeah, right- Everybody done thunked it.

Thndrbang- the real reason? I'll give you a couple of million reasons- the people who are now free to vote- that was the ONLY justification for the war- one that should NEVER be questioned because it was our moral duty to stop ignoring hteir plight and help them out from under a little Hitler- Saddam HAD to go- the people HAD to be freed- Politicians have tried to villify Bush over one issue- no WMD's" however, there IS clear evidence he did have them and DID have ties to terrorists who DID attack us- Plus he ignored sanctions for 12 years AND continued to shoot on our airforces during htose twleve years! these were ALL justifiable reason to go to war- but aside from that- there should be NO question that we HAD to take him out now- not later after he attacked millions more- it was our moral duty! http://sacredscoop.com

Off topic, but significant:

Keith Ellison encourages crowd to push for justice: "Allahu akbar" was the reply of many in the crowd.

Ummah News Links

When I talk about 2006 being a bad year, it is an answer to the question "Are we any better placed at the end of the year than what we were at the beginning of it?" - in other words, have we made progress, and does next year look any more promising? At present, the answer to all of these questions is "No". Even during World War II, we could say that we were better placed at the end of each year than what we had been at the beginning of it - especially from 1942 onwards (1940 onwards for Britain) despite rotten times for the Allies in those years. Also back in the 1940's we didn't have a multitude of human rights activists, lawyers, the MSM etc working against our Armed Forces and our leaders, and Churchill and Roosevelt left us in no doubt that we were going to win that war - in sharp contrast to our present-day leaders - and gave us the will to do so. Churchill was said to have "sent the English Language into battle". We had decisive leadership. We weren't kowtowing to Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan - in sharp contrast to Syria and Iran today. This is a war we can win decisively if we do what is needed to achieve this outcome. We are more than powerful enough to do so - if only we would allow ourselves off the leash - and I fear the leash will only get tighter over the course of the next year, and it is all because of stupid politically-correct rules of engagement, which only serves to please lawyers, human rights activists, Democrats, the MSM and our Islamonazi enemies - indeed everybody but the Armed Forces personnel.

Cotshop...that was interesting. Another poster who has Bush figured out. It's funny that liberals have him figured out one way and conservatives see something different... What other people around the world need our help in kicking out a crappy government? N Korea certainly qulifies. Can you explain why Clinton and Bush alike allowed N Korea the time and ability to supress thier people, manufacture some big bombs, and threaten the US and world? And why dont we attack NK? Bush has had power six years and he has done nothing with NK but talk. Is it our moral obligation to attack them? What about Iran, who has a vote? It it our 'moral obligation' to attack people who dont want our forms of democracy, or who may have a strong armed dictator? Of course if they have, 'the bomb' we might attack them, but we did not do that with NK.
Now Iran is calling the bluff because NK taught them how to do it. Unless Bush or one of his Bushmen have an ace up thier sleeve, this is going to be a rough card game...

Spirit Of 1683

you should go back and study some world war II history if you think we were "we were better placed at the end of each year than what we had been at the beginning of it"

Also as a general comment - I am all for acurate analysis but all this defeatism is pissing me off - lets just throw our hands in the air and give up - eh - I think we should remember this - we can only defeat ourselves - they cannot defeat us - there are many signs to be hopeful - the west is far from beaten yet and I predict it is Islam that will not see the end of this century - they are very close to over-stepping the mark - Europe will swing decisively to the right and everything will change - " a week is a long time in politics" and thank fuck for that!!

merry christmas

On FNC, in the Fox Report, there was a report on Iran's falling oil production, and the possibility that in 10 years, they won't be producing any. The person who did the study didn't discount that Iran could be wanting nukes, but made the point that when Iran stated that it needed other sources of energy, they meant it. If this manages to reduce Iran's clout with Russia and China, all the more welcome, but we don't have 10 years.

I tried to dig this report on FNC, but came up blank. However, there is something about it in Business Week

January. Iran goes BOOM.

UmmahNews- yeah I read that earlier today somewhere else- and so it begins- the Islamification of America as Muslims start to tear down our constitution and national laws form the INSIDE out- Gosh- didn't see that happening when Ellison stood up and said he was going to use hte Koran to swear in- Please Ellison supporter who support his right to spit in our faces by using the koran- tell us again how he honors our country & the Koran issue is a non issue- I just love that fable!!! Ellison is telling them to stand up as proud to be Muslims NOT Americans!!! Cripes- Wake Up America!!! http://sacredscoop.com

"The Bush Administration cannot permit the Iraniain project to go forward. If it has any sense at all, any sense of domestic politics, it must know that the fiasco of Tarbaby Iraq makes it impossible for the next administration to take decisive action in time." by Hugh

How much you want to bet Bush will not do a thing. Second with the display in Iraq now by our commanders what are the chances that the Iranian mission would be a success??

My bet is we would miss the target and hit the Chinese embassy (again for the second time in 15 years) and one of the planes would crash but not to worry the piolet would live only to be put on trial in Iran and we would have to grovel to get him back becuase after all what would the UN say if we tried to save him or punish the Iranians for killing him...

Don't laugh folks this is government operation led by Bush...

I was talking about full years 1st January - 31st December of each year, not dates straddling two different years like 1st April 1941 - 31st March 1942 (probably the lowest point of the war), where we were certainly worse off in March 1942 than April 1941).

Did we (Brits + Empire) look better placed on 31st December 1940 than we had been on 1st January 1940?

Did we (Brits + Empire again, Soviet Union from 22 June 1941) look better placed on 31st December 1941 than on 1st January 1941?

Did we (Brits + Empire, Soviet Union and US (who had been in the war for 25 days on 1st January 1942)) look better placed on 31st December 1942 than on 1st January 1942?

Did we (Brits + Empire, Soviet Union and US) look better placed on 31st December 1943 than we had been on 1st January 1943?

Did we (Brits + Empire, Soviet Union and US) look better placed on 31st December 1944 than we had been on 1st January 1944?

And for obvious reasons were all better off on 31st December 1945 than we had been on 1st January 1945?

Get the drift now?

"The Bush Administration cannot permit the Iraniain project to go forward"

....Why does it always have to be the Americans who have to save Europe and the world. How about some of these other so called great nations stepping up to the plate? Do they not realize they will the first dominos to tumble?
OH!, I forgot, they have already given up. (See Spain, France, Italy, et al)

Spirit Of 1683

If you had lived through the war I doubt you would have had anything to be optimistic about until 43 when the weremacht summer offensive was stopped at Kursk on july of that year - by our russian friends I might add - we , the brits were just by-standers.
Lets not get into a discussion of WWII as I would definitelly kick your ass there amigo - my point is your anology was fundamentally flawed in that when one is engaged in a titanic struggle it is diffucult , ner impossible to predict the outcome - an outcome that can hang in the balance dependent on numerous events - i.e. predicting the future is a fools errand.

happy new year

There was more than the land, sea and air battles in World War II. There was also political leadership, and our leaders, like Churchill, gave us the belief and conviction that we would WIN that war, even in its darkest days. Thats why, in many ways, no year was made to seem any worse than the other. And the turning point in that war came from the second half of 1942 onwards - at Midway, Alamein and Stalingrad. Kursk confirmed that we would win that war. Every victory, large or small, was turned into a morale booster, from the Battle of Britain onwards. And we didn't have the press and media undermining our efforts, or peaceniks protesting the war (or at least we didn't have them in Britain). Who is playing the Churchill role today. Our biggest problem nowadays is lack of leadership because of politically-correct politicians who are afraid of offending our foes.