"A. Invading Iraq would divert attention and resources from the goal of destroying al-Qaeda." describes the arguments that were made against President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003. ~Hope this helped :)
Options A and D. The statements that accurately describe arguments made against President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003 were that invading Iraq would divert attention and resources from the goal of destroying Al-Qaeda, and that the UN inspectors needed more time to determine if Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
Explanation:
One of the main arguments that held those who oppose President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003 was that going to war with the middle eastern country was illegal, as UN inspectors were investigating whether or not the country had weapons of mass production, but no decision of enforcement was made, and even if that was a possibility, the UN Security Council had to vote before any invasion occurring.
The other argument was that there were no direct evidence that connected Iraq with the terrorist group of Al-Qaeda that was the responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Therefore the argument that invading Iraq would divert attention and resources from the goal of destroying Al-Qaeda, a goal that had logical reasoning to be supported.
Though the Great Depression affected France late, it
nonetheless led to economic instability in 1934 that led to devaluation also
affected production in France. This was
due to lower restrictions that did more harm than good. This helped elect the Socialist Popular Front
Government in 1934.
Answer: The Great Compromise was forged in a heated dispute during the 1787 Constitutional Convention: States with larger populations wanted congressional representation based on population, while smaller states demanded equal representation.
