Worth 15 points!
which statements accurately describe arguments made against the 2003 u. s. invasion of iraq? choose all answers that are correct.
a. american officials didn't agree on whether or not iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
b. saddam hussein had never been a threat to the united states or his own people in the past.
c. iraq was willing to cooperate fully with un weapons inspectors.
d. un inspectors wanted more time to reach a deal to inspect iraqi weapon sites.
it says choose all answers so there is probably more than one!

The correct answers are A) American officials didn't agree on whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and D) UN wanted more time to reach a deal to inspect Iraqui weapon sites.

The statements that accurately describe arguments against the 2003 US invasion of Iraq were "American officials didn't agree on whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and UN wanted more time to reach a deal to inspect Iraqui weapon sites."

On March 15, 2003, President Bush and United Kingdom Prime Minister, Tony Blair, had an emergency meeting and gave the United Nations one more day to find a diplomatic solution on the possible invasion to Iraq. The United Nations had not found any clear evidence regarding Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. But the US thought otherwise. So on March 17, 2003, the US and the UK fail to secure the United Nations resolution authorizing the use of force. The US government gave Iraq 48 hours to surrender. The decision was controversial because at that time there were arguments against the 2003 US invasion of Iraq such as that American officials didn't agree on whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and UN wanted more time to reach a deal to inspect Iraqui weapon sites.

i used to know but i learned it a long time ago sorry

explanation:

what are the options ?