I also remember in the height of the vaccine mania. I posted that you should take any medicine, given informed consent, if you deemed its benefits to outweigh its harms. And you should not take any medicine whose harms you deemed to outweigh its benefits. It really didn't matter what someone labeled that medicine. I think it's the same with actions of the state: if you think the actions will benefit you, you ought to support them. If you think its actions will cause more harm than benefit you should oppose. If you don't know, then you should wait and see before taking a position. I know most decent people don't like war and most wars have caused more harm than good. So people are rightly wary when one country attacks another. But the word "war" is not very precise. Do we mean a trade war, an information/propaganda war, a proxy war, a military operation, a ground invasion and occupation, all of these can be categorized under "war". But all are very different things. The question shouldn't be, "am I against war?" but whether this action is going to benefit my interests or go against them. There's no anti-war, there is anti-invading Iraq and killing a million people for non-existent WMD, squandering $6T to the MIC and destabilizing a country. That was not in a regular person's interest. There is no anti-vax, there is anti covid mRNA shots that don't stop the spread and have disastrous side effect profiles. Don't make vaccines (pro or anti) your religion. Don't make supporting or opposing politicians your religion. Be for what works, what helps. what's in your interest. And against the opposite. The core problem is people have attached "goodness" to some views and "badness" to others, so they are stuck in concepts and slogans rather than seeing things clearly and evaluating them on the merits.