destruction, right? Yes,

weapons of mass destruction.

The US and the UK agreed.

They believed that the Iraqi armed forces had these weapons of mass destruction and posed a threat to their nations.

France and Germany, on the other hand, preferred to have inspections by the UN monitoring verification inspection regime instead.

It was a difference of approach in how you would address the weapons of mass destruction if they were in fact there.

The second point of contention was that there was no United Nations authorization for the use of military force.

Now, Sandy, As a captain in the Navy, someone who spent years and years in the military, do you think that NATO is an unwelcome obstacle to US security related to Greenland?

Yes.

Weapons of mass destruction.

Um, so the US and the UK agreed.

They believed that the Iraqi Armed Forces had these weapons of mass destruction and posed a threat to their nations.

France and Germany, on the other hand, re- preferred to have inspections by the UN Monitoring Verification Inspection regime instead.

So it was a difference of approach in how you would address the weapons of mass destruction if they were in fact there.

The second point of contention was that there was no United Nations authorization for the use of military force.

Now, Sandy, as a captain in the Navy, someone who spent years and years in the military, do you think that NATO is an unwelcome obstacle to US security related to Greenland?