[Skunk]

We insist on the enforcement of actions prescribed by the UN's SC, ...in an effort to enforce a resolution they signed off on a dozen years ago to protect a sovereign member nation, but we get the reputation of being war-hungry oil mongers.

Oh the SC argument again... You can't say, "we only want to ensure that SC resolutions are adhered to" in the case of Iraq - but ignore Israel which has breached far more SC resolutions. The argument doesn't wash.
As for the reputation of 'oil hungry', it might be to do with the fact that the US quite recently stated that securing Iraqi oil sites was one of its primary aims.

As for France, it has ALWAYS maintained that it would not only SUPPORT but also give MILITARY ASSISTANCE to any war with Iraq IF Iraq did *not* comply with the resolution or if Iraq hindered the work of the Weapons Inspectors.

But Iraq is co-operating with the inspectors and it has yet to breach the resolution. So France's position has remained unchanged - no war without a breach of the resolution. Oil has nothing to do with it.

Well, for the last round of voting both Russia and France were reluctant to insist upon inspections in a forceful manner until they were guaranteed their billion dollar oil contracts would be honored by a post Saddam regime.

That isn't true. Russia and France agreed to the resolution because if they did not, the US and UK would have gone alone and that would have literally meant the END OF THE UNITED NATIONS. They gave in to political blackmail.
This time round, it seems that France will vote 'NO' anyway - perhaps on the grounds that the UN would be dead anyway.

Remember, if France votes NO and the US/UK go into Iraq - then they would probably LOSE the contract ANYWAY.

So if oil is their motivating factor, then they would signal that they would vote YES in order to retain their oil rights.