"Pushing aside the UN, or refusing to accept curbs on the use of US force, can mean one of two things. The US may want to return to pre-1914 conditions, when the only international limitations on the right of each sovereign state to use force were rules dealing with the jus in bello —the ways in which force could be used—but not with the goals. This discards the progress accomplished in trying to form a modern jus ad bellum , a definition of the purposes for which force can legitimately be used (self-defense, collective security) and of the procedures that can authorize the resort to force. Treaties such as the genocide convention and international tribunals created to judge persons responsible for crimes against humanity or war crimes would be discarded. The post-1945 efforts to protect the human rights of individuals against states would also be scrapped. Security in the world jungle would depend exclusively on an efficiently functioning balance of power, or on voluntary self-restraint by a dominant superpower.

The anti-Americanism on the rise throughout the world is not just hostility toward the most powerful nation, or based on the old clichés of the left and the right; nor is it only envy or hatred of our values. It is, more often than not, a resentment of double standards and double talk, of crass ignorance and arrogance, of wrong assumptions and dubious policies. Whether our current leaders are capable of self-examination at a time of military victory may affect the planet for a long time to come."

One more idiot missing the point. Iraq started this war by invading Kuwait. This conflict was resolved mostly by US force which resulted in a cease fire agreement. Subsequently Saddam didn't comply with this cease fire agreement- this finding was not disputed by any nation- other than Iraq.
Lack of compliance by Saddam lead to various actions by the UN Security Council- sanctions was part of these actions. Clinton's bombing of Iraq was also a result of this non-compliance. In case people are forgetting things, it not a normal peaceful action to bomb another country- rather it is definitely a act of war. The difference between bombing or invading in terms of whether it's an act of war is none. Merely bombing another country has political advantages of being "less involved", but generally speaking it's morally it's more humane to use ground forces to attain goals of warfare then trying obtain this goal using only air power- unless all you want to do is send some form of a message- "a shot over the bow". Clinton's message obviously had little effect. And it could be argued that rather than a warning, Saddam could have seen it as a sign that American [and other countries] lacking the willingness to enforce the cease fire agreement.
All the US did was deciding to actually enforce a international held aggreement- the US rather than opposing international Law & Order was upholding international law. And the notion that some dinky dimwitted country such as France should actually command the US miltary forces is absurd notion that only mind dragging Lefty wackos could love.