I’d also submit that in the Book of Mormon’s purported setting, a violation of national boundaries was significant because the limitations of primitive technology made it difficult to commit acts of war without storming across someone’s border. That is no longer the case, as a nation’s legitimate interests are not limited to those within its borders.

The 2003 campaign in Iraq was basically a continuation of the 1991 war, after Saddam Hussein violated the terms of the cease-fire that suspended that legitimate war. I refer you to Alma 44 for a comparison. There, Captain Moroni offered his apparently-defeated enemies a truce: They were to yield up their weapons and promise not to attack again. The Lamanites accepted the first condition but rejected the second — and it was “game on” and the Lamanites got (mostly) slaughtered. The parallel to Iraq isn’t exact — Hussein broke his cease-fire later, rather than rejecting a condition immediately — but where the comparison does hold up is in the fact that if a legitimate war is ended by a cease-fire, the war that resumes when that cease-fire is broken is also legitimate.

Bottom line, I believe Saddam Hussein deserved getting conquered a lot more than the Kingmen in the Book of Mormon.

I mean, is it possible to say, “according the reasons given to the people by the administration at the time of initial invasion the war is not justified, but according to what actually has been happing, the war is justified”?

I hardly think that the message of our Church is that warfare is justified based on legal technicalities.

If Luxemborg declared war on the US, I’d laugh. And then I’d be justifiably upset with my government should it decide to actually invade Luxemborg on that reasoning.

Hitler is a debatable case, so is facist Japan, as to actual threat potential. But I don’t believe war is justified solely on the basis of legal technicalities. I do not consider one nation’s declaration of war against us sufficient reason for conducting warfare against them.

I agree that Roosevelt was a great leader. I also agree with his general decision to move to counteract the menace Hitler presented. But I would like to clarify that he was moving to protect the economic and political order of the free world, not American soil. That stuff about Nazis taking over the US and Canada was just silly war propaganda with little basis in reality.

that is an interesting incident. According to the wikipedia source you linked to, it was the Germans who actually fired first, though, at the Americans. Yes, the American ship was aggressive in following the German around, basically taunting the Germans into firing, but the American did not fire first.

Roosevelt was a true leader, yes. He understood the threat that Hitler actually did pose to America, as well as to our allies in Europe. This incident does show, as you say, his leadership in turning America’s opinion, which had been against a war with Germany, to be for it.