Reply #111: What's with the accusations?

[MellowDem]

No, I don't think it makes it "ok". But it is different from killing a person for no reason at all. I think it's important to make the distinction to try and prevent future tragedies from the fog of war, which there always will be of course, but better communication can reduce the number of incidents and requiring more evidence than two self-affirming pilot's own eyes through a camera over half a mile away.

If you are trying to imply that the pilot's both knew that they were shooting at unarmed civilians and were both in on a grand "lie" with each other just to shoot some civilians, I will have to say that I don't believe you.

As for Bush, I personally believe he lied or was too stupid to know he was lying and was simply told lies by the people who actually decided policy decisions in his administration. I do think they overstated the case for invasion and lied about certain evidence, but I also think that they truly beieved there was some sort of WMD in Iraq, even if they had no evidence of it. They convinced themselves of it. I don't think they knew there was no WMD and invaded on that reasoning, because that would be pretty stupid considering that the US would eventually find out there was no WMD and it ended up hurting their administration greatly.