Used Ink, sorry.
The Gulf War was authorised by the U.N. It never ended, there was just a ceasefire based on Iraq's adverence to the terms of several U.N. resolutions. Breach of these allowed further action. These have been breached, and the U.N. has acknowledged this formally on several occasions. Please see my post
here.
The U.S.A. and UK established the no-fly zones and have been conducting combat operations almost incessantly for over 5 years based on the above. The legality of these operations has been accepted by the world community and all complaints of Iraq rebuffed. if you believe otherwise, you believe we have been commiting war crimes for several years. Seen any U.N. or Hague International Court accusations, warrants, trials or convictions? No? Point made I believe.
Any further action would be merely of a far greater scale - but based on the same premise. There might be a case for looking at individual actions/attacks based on proportionality and the Geneva conventional, but not for the action as a whole. No declaration of war would be made or required since it would constitute the recommencement of previous operations.
On individual points.
1. Operations have never been against Saddam but always Iraq. If Saddam were to go into exile and be replaced by, say, his son who continued to refuse to adhere to the U.N. resolutions, then operations would continue.
2. If Saddam stays put, but submits and adheres to the resolution, hostilities and sanctions would (after compliance had been confirmed) lifted. I don't think the U.S.A. would like it, and would watch him like a hawk, but I believe they'd agree to it.
3. If Iraq won't comply because of Saddam, then he'll be removed. They can remove him themselves or stand aside.
4. Factually incorrect. The U.N. has documented evidence of the prior presence of WMD material. Iraq has been asked to provide proof of it's destruction. In the absence of such proof the material must be deemed to still be in existence.
5. And your point is?
6. See point 1 above.
Refuse an order on the above grounds and you'll be Court-Martialled, imprisoned and then dismissed in full accordance with regulations and the law for disobedience of a lawful order.
Notes:
1. If you turned around and said you considered any such attack would be immoral and counter-productive, I can't say I'd disagree with you. That would not, however, make it illegal.
2. I would agree that one of the major wishes of Bush is to get Saddam. Legally, however, that's not the basis for any action, it's Just a fortunate side product. Bush was, however, persuaded by Powell and others to allow Iraq a last chance to comply in order to bring the U.N. on side. I think he probably only agreed since he did not believe that there was the faintest possibility of Saddam complying. It would seem he was correct and will achieve his wish.
3. If the U.S.A. believe there is a possibility of the Security Council refusing authorisation for an attack if asked - they won't ask. As stated above it's not a legal requirement. The reason for doing it are to build a coalition and the use of bases in other countries. If needs be, however, they'll go it alone. They have staked to much crediblility in the region to back down now. They shouldn't have got themselves in this situation - but they have. Now they have to go through with it or they'll never be able to face anyone down again, and it could prove disastrous in other crisis areas such as Korea and when confronting any other nascent nuclear power.