Dan says:
"The reason we are there now is because Hussein refused to cooperate with UN sanctions and faced "drastic measures". "
Mary Anne say:
"Which the UN did not agree with."

The UN security council passed 1441. 1441 was a document which gave Saddam's regime one more chance to fully cooperate are face severe consequences. 1441 was made in an "environment" in which the US was building a invasion force and was it was well known by all parties that the US had a policy of changing the Iraqi regime. The reason why all members passed 1441 was because it was a compromise. For nations not wanting a US invasion to take place, 1441 was at least a means of potentially delaying this invasion. And many thought that if Saddam was given a stark choice, he would comply with the UN resolution.

No member of the security council could truthfully say that Saddam fully cooperated with the UN inspectors, and thereby Saddam had violated 1441, and the consequences of violating 1441 were "severe consequences". "Severe consequences" HAD to include as one possible action invasion and regime change. Now it's possible it could mean other things, but realistically what could these "severe consequences" be other than some attempt to overthrow the regime. Iraq already didn't control it's air space, and had severe restrictions on it's trade, what other "severe consequences" were possible?

It appears from 20/20 hindsight France's position was to never support the US miltary action which would change the Iraq regime. And apparently their intention behind supporting 1441 was to simply delay/hinder miltary action or hope that Saddam would change his tune when face with an immediate threat. If the US did not want to have a coalition, the US could invaded Iraq sooner and legally did not need 1441 [Blair's Labor party wouldn't agree without UN*]- there was sufficent evidence that Iraq had violated and would likely continuing violating it's cease-fire agreement from Gulf War I. Without going through the UN, the US could have step up it's deployment and attacked by say late 2002 or early 2003. There would had been some advantages and of course disadvantages in not delaying. From a purely miltary prospective- soldiers dying, costs, civilian deaths, and time it took to overthrow regime, without going through the UN would have been better. From a political prospective it's more of a mixed bag- but I would say looking at the big picture going through the UN was the correct course of action, and the net political plus was more important than any miltary advantages which might have otherwise been realized.
* It's rather interesting [will make good historical reading] when you focus on the UK role in both Gulf war I and II. Thatcher [UK's Conservative party] went to President Bush, strongly arguing for US to take leading role in kicking Saddam out of Kuwait. More than a decade later, his son, President Bush later goes to Blair [UK's Labor Party], strongly urging the UK to join with US to finish the job they had begun.