PEOPLE and politicians in the USA are being portrayed as warmongerers who can not wait to kick Saddam Hussein out of Iraq.

But here, Philadelphia student Jeff Frantz, who is in the North-west until May, studying media at Manchester University, argues that the public in America is as unsure about war as the British.

DON'T believe everything you've heard about Americans.

Big gas-guzzling trucks aren't the only thing on the road. Not everyone owns a gun. Some people even understand what offside rules are in football. And not all of us support the war on Iraq.

While there is probably more support of a forceful deposition of Saddam Hussein in America than any where else, a large portion of the American populous bears a striking resemblance to their British counterparts with mixed feelings coming from all across the political spectrum.

Consider this view of America: a nation led by a cowboy president whose top advisors were some of the best people in the Nixon administration, ready to slaughter a million innocent Iraqis on the way to the free oil. A bit extreme, no?

A more accurate description is a nation of questioning citizens whose leader is firmly committed to an aggressive policy in Iraq with a distinct view for a global battle on terror. Of course, that sounds a lot like this country as well.

The major difference between these two countries is not the mixed bag of feelings that exist among the masses, but rather the surprisingly different ways the build up to what looks like a certain war developed in each country.

Despite being the world's leading advocate for toppling Hussein, a possible invasion of Iraq was largely a non-issue in the States until relatively recently. To put it simply, concerns about the faltering economy, fallout from this summer's corporate scandal and the nation's ever-changing terror alerts took centre stage for much of the fall right up through the middle of December.

Now the easy solution for the lack of public debate over what seems like America's most ideological-based war since Vietnam is to blame the US media for a lack of vigilance for a story that in theory should top the headlines on a daily basis. However, such an explanation would ignore the political climate in the States since August, when Vice President Dick Cheney started talk of an invasion.

Leaders of both parties, for reasons both personal and political, supported President Bush's claims that Iraq needed to be disarmed, going so far as to pass a Congressional resolution authorizing the President to use force with relatively little fanfare or debate.

With the resolution vote coming just weeks before the midterm elections that would determine the structure of both legislative houses, most representatives toed the President's line, if nothing else to avoid being labelled "soft on terror" so late in the campaign.

Not surprisingly, when there is a lack of debate at the highest levels of government over the course of national policy, there is an equal lack of debate among its citizens, especially in a nation where people are still used to the domestic issues-first mindset.

Contrast this with the situation of Tony Blair, who for months has had to answer questions from MPs both inside and outside of his party about his intended course of action in Iraq. Unlike Bush, Blair hasn't had the luxury of a media that has largely been focused on other things.

And of course, Bush isn't thought to be led around by a foreign leader, something which no doubt makes it all the harder for Blair to get a groundswell of support for his policies.

Despite the past disinterest of most Americans over an Iraqi conflict, the idea of going to war has created as much public debate across the pond over the past two months as can be found in any pub here.

According to a CNN poll taken on Monday, 45 per cent of Americans still feel the UN weapons inspectors should be given more time to carry out weapons searches, while the number of Americans that support invasion without a second resolution has fallen for the second straight week to 39 per cent.

And, for what it's worth, the friends and family I've kept in touch with back in the States tell me that, while the anti-war movement hasn't reached Vietnam-era levels, it is growing.

Even among people who identify themselves as conservatives in support of the war, there is acknowledgement that the anti-war movement is gaining momentum.

Keep in mind there was an anti-war demonstration in December where 500,000 people marched on Washington, a feat likely to be outdone tomorrow when protesters rally in Washington and New York to coincide with protests in London.

In the month I've been in this country, it's rare a day has gone by that I don't get asked what my government is doing. I have no idea, especially considering it was the CIA that published a report this past summer saying the only way Iraq posed an immediate threat was by attacking them.

But of course it is the government that's doing it. And just like past conflicts which lacked a full public consensus, it is the leaders who won't be doing the fighting who are the strongest proponents for war.

Similarly, it's the American public which is caught in the middle.