I could respect that. If France said, "Look, Iraq hasn't invaded any foreign countries in 10 years, and we just don't care what happens to Iraq's own people. We're not worried about 'potential threats'. We're not going to authorize a premptive strike on them. Period", then I could see their point. You could argue pretty persuasively that war isn't justified without clear evidence of intent on the part of the opposing party. And the mere existance of chemical weapons or nuclear bombs doesn't necessarily indicate intent. Is a general hostility and lack of cooperation worth a war? Maybe not.
But that's not their position. No, their position is "Well, yes, I know we said that they had 60 days comply, and I know they haven't really complied, but let's give them another 60 days anyway."
Why make a threat that you will not back up?
UN Resolution 1411 was fighting words. If they did not think the cause worth fighting over, they should not have authorized it.