President Obama: Do you really love America?

[Anomalocaris]

It is implausible that in cases where a country waging war nominally attacked many military targets and incurred many civilian causalties, it could have continuously failed to predict the civilian casualties had resulted. It is not an accident when civilian casualties can be predicted.

The question then becomes can you disinterestedly believe the country's stated intention that it did not seek to benefit in any way from civilian casualties which it had incurred and which must have been predicted, when such civilians casualties can plausibly advance the country's war aims as much as, or more than, destruction of the military targets in question.

Intent is still key in this discussion.

Decisions to go to war must always be considered with caution, done only when all other options have been exhausted and where the alternative to war is unacceptable. Irresponsible, reckless and impulsive decisions to go to war, such as ours during the latest Gulf War, to say nothing of questionable motives on the profits of certain corporations tied to the previous administration, are morally reprehensible. The reason they are morally reprehensible is because of the intentions.

W Bush's war in Iraq was like a man who gets drunk and decides to drive a huge semi truck and plows through a crowd of people. He's responsible morally for all those killed in his reckless and irresponsible act. Actually, worse than that because there may have been a clear headed intent by some to profit from the war they were pushing.

Even still, the drunk driver is not morally equivalent to the serial murderer.

The drunk driver would be if he benefits from killing someone while driving drunk, knows he benefits, and could very plausibly have gotten drunk repeatedly in order to avail himself of that benefit, even if he claims he gets drunk purely out of the joy of mere inebriation.