Originally Posted by Elli

I have already listed what experiences my opinions are based on.

And yes, there is a very strong sentiment especially in American mass media that "If you're not with us, you're against us" and people who don't support the government's actions are counter-productive. This is a well documented phenomenon. Since Congress has gone democratic and Bush is wearing out his welcome, the pendulum has begun to swing the other way. But there's still very little open debate on television. "News" stories feature only one side of an issue, not both, and the station usually has a chosen bias that its stories support. Where both sides of an issue are represented, the unfavourable side is often presented by a more kooky and less respected character than the person who is presenting the favoured side.

Originally Posted by CarlosTheGaucho

Yeah, Well States learned from Korea and Vietnam, now they won't go for another armed conflict unless there is not a decent buck in it

Everyone with a little bit of overview (and from the outside world) can see that from 1000 miles away..

I was checking a couple of magazines and newspapers in the States, and there was a very few that wouldn't have something related to the current conflicts in their current issue, what I observed was always the same scheme of the article:

1) there is a recent problem and we are aware of that (say troops in Iraq are slaughtered big time and have a hard time while getting back)
2) a proper analysis why they are there etc. long - very long analysis with many names and people with many titles commenting
3) the resume: in fact it's allright and we have to support them

So the propaganda works on 101 pct. - it has to, if you want to lead a war you can't let anyone disbelief in it, no matter if on the field or the civils.