>>>Any country who believes a Security Council resolution is passed strictly, or even mostly, due to the self-interest of countries passing that resolution should certainly ignore it. If the U.S. and it's allies were to pass a resolution tomorrow about Iran that served only their self-interest, I wouldn't fault Iran for ignoring it.
>>>
>>>Each resolution should be viewed on its merits alone, not the political agenda of those voting for or against it.
>>
>>So, resolutions are obviously not worth the paper they were written on. Then, it's completely OK that Hezbollah didn't disarm.
>
>This is what is known as a straw man argument.

You set up the first straw man, by assuming that resolution against Hezbollah is somehow different from 60 resolutions against Israel. IMO, all resolutions are equal.

>If you would rather not directly answer the question I posed earlier, that's fine:
>
>So it's your contention that every U.N. Security Council resolution is a good one, based on sound reasoning, and not in fact influenced by each country's own interests?

Since you insist: all resolutions are a result of negotiations where all negotiators follow their own interest. The end result is a resolution which represents the will of the world in its best available shape. So they are as good as it gets.

Besides, who's to decide whether each "Security Council resolution is a good one, based on sound reasoning"? You and I? We've already shown to each other that our ideas of sound reasoning differ. Since we couldn't possibly agree on that, we have delegated that task to the world's parliament, the UN.

Now if you think that respecting the UNSC resolution is not the way to go, I knew a guy who who wholeheartedly agreed - Miloshevich. There were a bunch of those he chose to ignore.