"None of the UN resolutions that you invoke in these threads, or that the government of the US invokes, in order to justify its invasion of Iraq, in any way authorize the US to invade Iraq."

It is Iraqi non-compliance with UN resolutions that is invoked to justify action being taken independently. The US from day one was very clear on this to both the United Nations Security Council and to the regime in power at that time in Iraq.

Possibly so, Teribus. But in your 07 Jul 04 - 04:21 AM post, you said this:

The terms of the Safwan ceasefire had been broken, therefore the ceasefire was invalid freeing any coalition member to resume hostilities.

This statement is entirely incorrect, and it is this statement that I was responding to in my 07 Jul 04 - 10:53 AM post.

"The US violated at least one UN resolution when it invaded Iraq."

Which one?

UNSC Resolution 1441.

"The US is in violation of at least one UN resolution."

Regarding Iraq in particular, or in general?

UNSC Resolution 1441.

"It did not do so in order to uphold any UN resolutions, because the UN did not give it the authority to attack Iraq for the purpose of upholding any resolutions."

The US intervened in Iraq to ensure Iraqi compliance with the umpteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions passed affecting Iraq. After all the UN were showing no signs of being prepared to do anything about it.

In order to ensure compliance with UNSC Resolution 1441, the US would have had to help the UN maintain its presence in Iraq in the form of the UN inspectors. By attacking Iraq, and thereby forcing the UN inspectors to leave Iraq, the US not only violated UNSC Resolution 1441, it also made Iraq's compliance with UNSC Resolution 1441 an impossibility.

"The US attacked Iraq because it wanted to."

Incorrect, the US attacked Iraq because they felt they had to, they did not believe they had any choice.

This is an unverifiable opinion, not a fact.