I believe that in the process of drafting a second resolution, Chirac stated that France would veto any resolution that would call for, or result in, military action against Iraq, the Russians said they would support the French point of view and the German's, although not UNSC permanent members were chairing the Security Council at the time, also stated that they supported the French position.

The original draft of 1441, clearly stated that unless Iraq co-operated fully and pro-actively with UNSCOM, military action would result. That draft resolution was jointly tabled by both the USA and the UK. I don't think that the UK got roped in, we had after all been assisting the Americans for the best part of 12 years in maintaining the Northern and Southern "no-fly" zones. Like the USA, the UK fully realised the danger of an Iraq under Saddam Hussein devoid of any monitoring; with UN sanctions as porous as a collander; and the political/diplomatic pressure being mounted to end sanctions altogether, the situation vis-a-vis Iraq had to be resolved.

To describe Saddam Hussein as, "a spoilt child in charge of a country" is a grave understatement. He was without doubt a thoroughly dangerous character, domestically; regionally and internationally.

With regard to the United Nations, you could throw money at that organisation until you were blue in the face it would still continue to be an ineffectual, mendicant, talking shop, where self-interest rules. As Guest Whistle Stop above has quite correctly pointed out - "The UN has relied on the US to be its primary "muscle" for most of its history" - and in any serious crisis situation in the future it would be to the USA that the UN would turn, not Russia; UK; France or China.

World Peace entails World solutions, that at times may have to be enforced and the UN should be fully prepared to order just that. Unfortunately the pursuit of furthering private national interests of individual member states is something you will never get rid of.