Someone once said something along the lines of "No one who is completely sane would willingly go to war."
Good point.
Being "pro-war" is like being "pro-car crashes." It's an indefensible position. War should be a [i]last[/i] and reluctant option, entered into because there is no other choice.
Ask anybody who's ever been on the sharp end in actual combat. It's not something that someone who is sane would ever [b]want[/b] to do.
Edited to add:
I can't remember what movie it was, but there was one in which Peter Falk played a Sargent who had been wounded multiple times, but he kept coming back to the front. Someone asked him why, because with his wounds he could have easily gone home. His response in the film was that he was hooked on the rush of combat. That being shot at, fighting for his life and winning, was such a rush that he [i]needed[/i] it - like a drug. His character, of course, was killed shortly thereafter.
I think it was supposed to be an exposition on why humans fight wars, historically. I think it's BS if that was the case, but I certainly think some people have that addiction. Patton certainly seemed to, though in a more removed way.