It promises severe consequences for continued obstruction of inspections. The US wrote it as a threat of force for noncompliance. That was clear from the get go as the US was building forces in the region as that resolution was being written. No resolution was passed forbidding the use of force. From the beginning of the truce in GW1 the US and Britain have been attacking Saddam for violations of the truce. All through the 2 Clinton terms. Were these illegal? The only difference is how much strength of force Clinton was willing to apply. France did not continue in its airpower participation because getting on good terms with Saddam and getting oil contracts was its priority not making sure Saddam abided by the truce.

Your Israel example is ludicrous. Not invading one country has nothing to do with whether invading another is legal. Invasion is always a choice. No country has ever been forced to invade another. The US has not supported most of those resolutions and most of them were general not security council resolutions which are supposed to have more force. General resolutions are like public opinion polls.

As for the US troups over their it's amazing how big your blinders are. You ignore all signs of welcome by normal citizens. You obviously forget the cheers and the statues toppling as Saddam's forces were routed. You act as if all Iraqis want us out now. Most want us out, but prefer we stay until stability is established. You act like people willing to kill their own people indescriminantly are freedom fighters rather than terrorists. You ignore all the negative comments about Al-Sadr from Iraqis. Your comments should embarrass you. Support from people like you will be one of the factors driving moderates and independants away from Kerry. It's clear you have no idea what the truth is or how to find it. I garauntee know one over here would consider you a freedom fighter if you intentionally killed US citizens while we were occupied by a force trying to rebuild our country.

Regards,
Mark