Wouldn't you?
When Winston Churchill was asked why he supported social programs and the government funding of the arts during WWII his response was "if we don't support those things then what are we fighting for?"
Brilliant response - from a conservative no less!
= new reply since forum marked as read
didn't even ask which was more important to you.
Oh well.
Because I've never met anyone who supports them ferverently that is not expecting prosperity from the various things that war creates for some people.
An example is this article by the NYT... Think of all that money:
The Pitfalls of Peace
The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth
by Tyler Cowen - JUNE 13, 2014
Nikita Khrushchev and East German leaders with a Sputnik 3 replica in 1959. Credit Bettmann/Corbis
The continuing slowness of economic growth in high-income economies has prompted soul-searching among economists. They have looked to weak demand, rising inequality, Chinese competition, over-regulation, inadequate infrastructure and an exhaustion of new technological ideas as possible culprits.
An additional explanation of slow growth is now receiving attention, however. It is the persistence and expectation of peace.
The world just hasn’t had that much warfare lately, at least not by historical standards. Some of the recent headlines about Iraq or South Sudan make our world sound like a very bloody place, but today’s casualties pale in light of the tens of millions of people killed in the two world wars in the first half of the 20th century. Even the Vietnam War had many more deaths than any recent war involving an affluent country.
Counterintuitive though it may sound, the greater peacefulness of the world may make the attainment of higher rates of economic growth less urgent and thus less likely. This view does not claim that fighting wars improves economies, as of course the actual conflict brings death and destruction. The claim is also distinct from the Keynesian argument that preparing for war lifts government spending and puts people to work. Rather, the very possibility of war focuses the attention of governments on getting some basic decisions right — whether investing in science or simply liberalizing the economy. Such focus ends up improving a nation’s longer-run prospects.
More of that reasoning here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic-growth.html?_r=1
Not my view, but some may want to chew on that a while. There are a number of hyper charged individuals who live well off the various instruments of war, from the weapon makers and the attending industries. Just like the smaller businesses that are supported by the major car manufacturers.
The armed forces are among the biggest, if not the biggest users of fossil fuels. Also of high technology research and manufacturig, and that precedes the products used by consumers. Their contractors make a lot of things and innovate more than most other industris.
Supporters may disguise their vote by religion and ideology, but it's really about who and what feather their own nests. It's almost subconscious. This is part of human nature, but some are working to live with less and live in peace. Others are not ready to take that risky journey.
Just sayin'
