<Now, it was still "evil" from my point of view. A good guy has to BE good, not just want to be good, or intend to be good.

Sorry. Wrong. The concept of evil ALWAYS includes intent. Almost every code of morality and every religion covers this factor, as well as the law.

Had the warplanes deliberately set out to shoot up an unarmed wedding party, with prior knowledge that the people on the ground were not trying to shoot down the planes or were hostile, we would have crossed the line into "evil," but I don't think we're there yet.

The shootup of the wedding involved what Ayn Rand would have called "an error of knowledge," or in less poofy language, a mistake. Of course, this does not make the attack a "good" thing for those who were attacked. And of course, this does not automatically excuse the ones who made the mistake, or justify the act, as one can see from legal concepts like "involuntary manslaughter," which can punish one who causes an accidental death. Intent may keep one from being defined as "evil," but it does not excuse one from paying for the results.

It would be appropriate for the U.S. to compensate the victims at the very least, and an investigation may result in punishment for the pilots. Even if they were not "evil" as such, it may very well be that their actions were not justified.