War: n. 1. State or fact of using violence against another; esp., a contest of force between states; ... declared and open hostilities.

Revolution: n. 6. A fundamental change in political organization, or in a government or constitution; overthrow of one government, and substitution of another, by the governed;.

(Tom, the Webster's I'm using is a 1936 edition.)

Presuming that people who comment here are freedom lovers, how is it "amoral" to oppose contests of force between states or the initiation of violence against another?

Contests which inevitably require people to fight on behalf of the State, whether by conscription or voluntary enlistment (often a result of deceptive recruiting practices, or State propaganda demonizing the "enemy" state) and usually entail the death and dismemberment of myraid "non-combatants," individuals who would choose not to fight if given free will?

If "War is the health of the State," which seems to be an accurate and astute observation, where is the virtue in being pro-war... the logical opposite of being "anti-war," and by extension of logic, being pro-state?

If wars are waged between states by states, whereas revolutions are fought by people, and the former tends to undermine freedom while the latter tends to preserve and/or secure individual liberties, I'd count myself as one of the anti-war, pro-freedom crowd.