I'm, naturally, a pacifist. I like to think that violence is usually not the best answer to any conflict, and personally avoid it whenever possible. That does not mean that I am unwilling, or unable to fight, I simply choose to seek other (see: peaceful) resolutions first. Sometimes, unfortunate though it may be, violence is an answer.
We should hate violence for its destructive toll on all involved interests. Whether it is the violence between a schoolyard bully and his diminutive victims, or the often fatal actions of a tyrant toward their subjects; violence often incurs far more cost than benefit. However, violence is often the last resort of interested parties trying to protect their interests or the interests of others.
As events unfold in Libya and the rest of the Middle East (not to mention all over the world!), it is important to be able to disseminate the threads of reality from the propaganda that can be spewed from both sides of the plate. Warmonger has made an appearance already in relation to the US involvement in the Libya situation, and I feel that the pejorative is unwarranted. Warmongering is too manipulative, warmongers acting as nothing more than the telemarketers of violence.
Most people have nothing to gain from warmongering. Wars affect economies, markets, international relations, elections, and more; to think a sane leader of a (mostly) sane population capable of participating in this activity willingly borders on reckless. To apply this label to someone supporting family and friends, who are fighting overseas, is nothing short of shameful.
One does not need to be a warmonger to understand the necessity of participating in a military action, they simply need to be observant. If it is our tenant to protect those who cannot protect themselves, we must also accept the responsibility of providing that protection; sometimes that means we must respond with action metered by diplomacy.