I just copied this from wikipedia (for what its worth)
Positions of UN Security Council members
United States - The US maintained that Iraq was not cooperating with UN inspectors and had not met its obligations to 17 UN resolutions. The US felt that Resolution 1441 called for the immediate, total disarmament of Iraq and continued to show frustration at the fact that months after the resolution was passed Iraq was still not disarming. Language in Resolution 1441 recalled that the use of "all means necessary" was still authorized and in effect from UN Resolution 678, and therefore maintained that if Iraq failed to comply with the "one final chance to comply" provision of resolution 1441, then military action would be the result.
United Kingdom - Within the United Nations Security Council, the United Kingdom was the primary supporter of the U.S. plan to invade Iraq. Tony Blair, the British prime minister, publicly and vigorously supported American policy on Iraq, but was perceived by some to exert a moderating influence on the American president George W. Bush. British public opinion polls in late January showed that the public support for the war was deteriorating. It had fallen from 50% to 30% by March.
France - On January 20, 2003, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said, "We think that military intervention would be the worst possible solution," although France believed that Iraq may have had an ongoing chemical and nuclear weapons program. Villepin went on to say that he believed the presence of UN weapons inspectors had frozen Iraq's weapons programs. France also suggested that it would veto any resolution allowing military intervention offered by the U.S. or Britain. The most important French speech during the crisis was made by De Villepin at the UN Security Council on the February 14, 2003, after UN Chief Inspector Hans Blix presented is detailed report (see below). De Villepin detailed the three major risks of a "premature recourse to the military option", especially the "incalculable consequences for the stability of this scarred and fragile region". He said that "the option of war might seem a priori to be the swiftest, but let us not forget that having won the war, one has to build peace". He emphasized that "real progress is beginning to be apparent" through the inspections, and that, "given the present state of our research and intelligence, in liaison with our allies", the alleged links between al-Qaeda and the regime in Baghdad explained by Colin Powell were not established. He concluded by referring to the dramatic experience of "old Europe" during WWII. This "impassioned" speech "against war on Iraq, or immediate war on Iraq", won "an unprecedented applause", said Sir David Frost (BBC News). The complete text is available at the Embassy of France in the United States. Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov also garnered unusual applause inside the chamber with his speech against the war. Britain and the U.S. sharply criticized France for this position in March, 2003.
Germany - On January 22, German chancellor Gerhard Schröder at a meeting with French president Jacques Chirac said that he and Mr. Chirac would do all they could to avert war. At the time, Germany was presiding over the Security council.
Russia - On the same day, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said that "Russia deems that there is no evidence that would justify a war in Iraq." On January 28, however, Russia's opinion had begun to shift following a report the previous day by UN inspectors which stated that Iraq had cooperated on a practical level with monitors, but had not demonstrated a "genuine acceptance" of the need to disarm. Russian President Vladimir Putin indicated that he would support a US led war if things did not change and Iraq continued to show a reluctance to completely cooperate with inspection teams. However, Putin continued to stress that the US must not go alone in any such military endeavor, but instead must work through the UN Security Council. He also stressed the need for giving the UN inspectors more time.
China - The People's Republic of China supported continued weapons inspections. On January 23, the Washington Post reported that the Chinese position was "extremely close" to that of France.
Angola - Angola supported continued inspections, but had not taken a stand on disarmament by military action.
Bulgaria - Bulgaria suggested that it would support the use of military force to disarm Iraq, even without UN backing.
Cameroon - Cameroon encouraged the continued inspections, but had not taken a firm stand on whether the country would support a US led strike to invade Iraq.
Chile - Chile indicated that it would like inspections to continue, but had not taken a position on the use of military force to disarm Iraq.
Guinea - Guinea supported further inspections, but had not taken a position on the use of military force to disarm Iraq.
Mexico - Mexico supported further inspections, and indicated that it would support a US led military campaign if it were backed by the UN. The country hinted that it might consider supporting a military campaign without UN backing as well. President Vicente Fox heavily criticized the war when it started.
Pakistan - Pakistan supported continued inspections.
Syria - Syria seemed to feel that Iraq was cooperating and meeting its obligations under UN resolutions. Syria would have liked to see UN sanctions on Iraq lifted.
Spain - Spain supported the US's position on Iraq and supported the use of force to disarm Iraq, even without UN approval.
Connect with Facebook
