Granted, I researched about 20 websites, and opinions varied from outright illegal, to barely legal. My point was more that the US has lots of reasons to take out Hussein, including (possibly) oil. France‘s only reason for opposition, it appears, is oil. A sample from The Washington Institute website:
"...Contrast that experience with the approach toward Saddam Hussein, a perpetrator of more-grievous human-rights abuses than Milosevic. Sadly, increasingly lucrative Iraqi business contracts appear to have virtually silenced any European effort at indicting Saddam for war crimes. Russia, for example, has earned more than $1 billion in contracts with Saddam under the oil-for-food programs, and has promises of several billion dollars more in future contracts once sanctions are lifted. In the first four years of the oil-for-food program, France won $3.5 billion in trade with Iraq.
The U.S. (and maybe its close ally in these matters, Britain) appears ready to strike Iraq again any day now as Saddam continues to upgrade his air defenses and challenge the no-fly zone. But the fact that United Nations reports show France and Russia doing much more trade with Iraq than other European countries should not surprise. Unfortunately, France and others are not limiting themselves to legal trade.
With the November 2000 resumption of illegal oil exportation through the Iraq-Syria pipeline, Baghdad receives an additional $1 billion annually outside the tight constraints of the U.N. humanitarian program. With selective contracting, Saddam uses this money to reward countries taking a softer line toward Iraq. According to the July 9, 2001, edition of the Baghdad weekly Nabd Al-Shabab, CMA CGM, France‘s leading shipping company, will soon start defying the sanctions regime on Iraq by ferrying supplies into Iraq. "
Again, my point was everyone is quick to support or (usually) condemn the US. There are few, however "without sin" in the Security Council
