From here

Surveillance, payed by the UN, would have cost 1,000 less than the war, payed mainly by the US.
Paying the Inspections would be shared by the UN, and all the countries, even those opposed to the war.

I heard yesterday (forgot the source) that the war could cost anything from 99 Billion $ (optimist scenario) to more than a Trillion $ (pessimist scenario).

Every time I see americans complaining about France's interest in the gulf area, 2 objections arise:
1) The US and many countries also have interest in Iraq. US was even importaing more oil from Iraq than France did (of course, the US, being much larger, it's normal. Saddam's trick was to involve many countries in his dealings, the SU, China as well as western countries.

2) I hear as argument that the war has nothing to do with oil. In that case, why insist about France's role in the country, which is obvioulsy oil related? It was oil and it is oil all the time, is it or is it not?

Anyway, even if it could be true that France is an important client for Iraq, Iraq only represents 0,3% of all imports to France. And it's far more the importance of Iraq for France that matters ,here, than the importance of France to Iraq.

By chosing to say no, France knew perfectly well that it would loose contracts to the US.
But even after Gulf war 1, it didn't get as much as they thought, for the reconstruction of Kuwait. There are signs the UK won't get as much they'd hope for the reconstruction of Iraq, this time.

France has much more to loose from contracts with the US, which is its 5th commercial partner.
On the other hand, commerce is so intertwined between the EU, the US and the world, one can wonder. For instance, my brother used to work for GM in France (Sarreguemine, near the german border) and he said that one french car has perhaps 20% of its components from France, all the rest from the rest of the world. Same goes for cars manufactured in the US: they all have components from all over the world. And Airbus plane has Pratt and Whitney jet engines, etc...
Also, french companies ,in the US, employ more than 500,000 americans in the US.

To accuse France of looking for it's self interest in the economic field is quite ridiculous.
But it's true that the US gave France's diplomacy an opportunity to shine. France knows very well it isn't a great power anymore, therefore it has to rely on the international law, on the UN, on principles that govern international relationships.
Those principles laid the foundation of the UN, after WW2 and were championned by the US presidents.
Pre-emptive war is simply wrong, wrong, wrong.
And for the moment, the US is playing the "Blame the french game", which is heavily reported, here. Always cool to look for scapegoats!
That's why France is keeping a low profile about the war. Chirac's advisors have told him to wait and see. But some doubt, knowing his character, he can do that.
It is striking how different George B and Jacques C are. A former french amabassador said GWB had to withstand (during a june 2001 meeting) very elaborated explanations of the complexity of the Middle-East situation, the Hachemit dynasty, etc from JC. Chirac loves lengthy debates. GWB was annoyed after a while.
France has a history of colonialism and wars, many wars. Chirac has a particular passion for extreme-orient cultures. Chirac always would say: do not humiliate your adversary (which won him favors from Russia).
Regards,

Raoul