You may have read in more meaning than was intended -- i wished to shed some light that the case sited happened a long time ago.
If one has to reach back into the last millennium for an example of US not getting its way, perhaps that in itself should be indicative of your folly?
It's obvious you use the word millennium to attempt to instill a level of ridiculousness that isn't really warranted. It's like someone saying: "oh man, I won't see you till next year!" on New Years Eve - it's pedantic verbiage.
That case was 20yrs ago (but yes, technically last millennium). There are plenty of laws and legal precedence set within the past 20yrs that are still very relevant.