Chirac of France bluntly told both the US and the UK that irrespective no second resolution would ever be put to a vote because France would use its Veto to block it.

Wasn't it rather that he indicated that, should it come to a vote for immediate war on Iraq, France would vote against it - along with a whole bunch of other members of the Security Council? And of course a vote against by France would mean the resolution would fall, even in the rather unlikely possibility that the it got a majority vote. In any case Russia had already said it would use its veto.

The actual decision not to put the resolution to a vote was taken by its proposers, not by its opponents.

If push had come to shove, this would have been the second occasion ever that France used its veto. (The only other time was in 1976.) The USA has used its veto well over 70 times, and the UK has used its at least eight times.