In that case, the resolutions post date the initial war, rendering the whole analogy invalid.

As for any Iraqi threat to hit the US, even after a war that was a stunning humiliation for Iraq, they had never made any move to strike the US, or did they,? I am sure you will tell me. Was their infrastructure even capable of doing so anymore anymore? the most they did was switch on a few radars and make a few catch me if you can flights into the no fly zones, more of a move to salvage some self respect than any kind of threat.

I just think that the whole response by the Bush administration was excessive, so he ignored a few UN resolutions, thats not something that new in the history of the UN, the US was as one point in serious debt to the UN by failing to pay up its financial obligations to the tune of $365 million in the early 90's, this of course was period when Washington sort of liked the UN thanks to their support following the invasion of Kuwait, they only did so "when they saw fit" but not enough to counter their eventual debt of around $1.5 billion. Obligations to the UN should be a 2 way street then, resolutions or not I think.

The size of this debt has been part of US goverment policy for quite a while, when the US could command a majority in the UN which they did for some time, only those unfriendly to the US were pressured for payment as was the case with the Soviet union. However as their influance waned they sought to regain it by refusing to pay, putting pressure on the UN that way. Its a big stick to carry. While there are other countries who are in arrears none are ever as in debt as the US, who, could more easily settle her debt.

Sledge