>As far as the land Israel occupied... wasn't Israel attacked by all it's neighbors? Repeatedly? So basically the U.N. is saying, give back the land of the people who tried to push you into the sea.

I don't think so... Israel preemptively attacked in 1967 and grabbed (won) the land.
>
SNIP
>
>The U.N. has no strength. It draws up resolution after resolution on Iraq, not really intending to do anything about it. When will people ever learn that dictators understand one and only one form of diplomacy: force. When Saddam invaded Kuwait, he didn't leave because of diplomacy. He left because the world drove him out.

Fair enough. But, as you say, in the case of Kuwait the world was united in the effort.
This time there is a large gap between what President Bush wants to do, when, and what/when the world wants to do. Now there is no doubt that President Bush and the U.S. military can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, but the question is: should they?
To go ahead regardless of U.N. position doesn't really do much for the U.S. except to establish it firmly as the world's bully. And it certainly puts a permanent end to any credibility that the U.N. can hold in the future.
The U.N. was not created to enable (or legitimize) war. The U.N. was created in hopes of permanently ending war, by replacing guns and bombs with talk and agreement. It can't really be called "agreement" when one party says 'I'm gonna do it regardless of what you say at the U.N.'.