| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Arabs Worried About the Impact of 'Second US Civil War' |
| 2004-10-25 |
| Normally it is Washington that worries about stability in Arab countries. These days, however, there is much official nail biting in Arab capitals over the threat of instability in the United States. "What we are witnessing in the United States is their second civil war," says an Arab diplomat posted to Washington. "The difference is that this war is waged in the media, in churches, on the hustings, and inside many American homes." That next week's presidential election is the closest in US history seems certain. What is causing concern in Arab and other capitals is that the intense passions unleashed by both sides could provoke instability and violence regardless of who wins. Arab diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity, claim that the Democrats, many of whom believe their party was robbed of victory in 2000, are determined to fight hard to dislodge President George W. Bush from the White House. Fears that the "American street" might explode, in the fashion often attributed to the "Arab street," may well be exaggerated. But the possibility of US government becoming paralyzed for weeks, if not months, as a result of disputes over election results cannot be discounted. Both President Bush and his Democrat challenger Sen. John Kerry start from a solid support base of around 40 percent of the electorate each. The remaining 20 percent consists of undecided or floating voters whose decision could affect the outcome in 12states still up for grabs. In the 2000 presidential election the closeness of the results in the state of Florida provoked a legal duel that was ultimately decided by the US Supreme Court. This time the experience of Florida could be repeated in many other states. Both Republicans and Democrats have already set up legal headquarters in Florida, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Ohio, West Virginia and New Hampshire. Most polls show the two candidates neck-and-neck in those states. That means the outcome could be decided by a few dozen or a few hundred votes. Some of the states have laws under which if the margin of victory is less than half of one percent a recount is automatically conducted. Others have no such laws, forcing the loser to take the matter to court on other grounds such as possible fraud. The Florida fight in 2000 dragged on for more than a month. Similar fights in a dozen or more states could last longer. And that could put American decision-making on autopilot, so to speak. "The prospect of the US being unable to take urgent decisions for months cannot be taken lightly," suggests an Arab diplomat. "Such paralysis could be dangerous in our region where the situation remains volatile. The war in Iraq, the dispute over Iran's nuclear ambitions, the UN fight with Syria over Lebanon, and the Israeli plan to withdraw from Gaza cannot be put on the backburner for months." The calendar of events for the three months ahead is unusually full in the region. If Bush wins the Democrats are certain to do all they can to delay the finalization of the results through litigation. But even if Kerry wins, the transition might not be as smooth as in 2000 . The Republicans are likely to retain control of the Senate; and that would give them the possibility of delaying the formation of a Kerry administration by vetoing his nominees for key posts. "It may be exaggerated that we are biting our nails in worry," says an Arab official. "But we need contingency plans to cope with a situation in which the US is busy with its domestic fights." |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #33 Arabs Worried About the Impact of 'Second US Civil War' Personally, I'm amazed how no one has realized as of yet that all this is merely a case of projection and naught else. Please do not confuse some other barbaric culture's problem solving methods with our own. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-10-25 11:35:14 PM |
| #32 "husting" isn't, but "hustings" is. Generally, a platform or stump for speeches. |
| Posted by: Dishman 2004-10-25 6:41:42 PM |
| #31 Sorry your feelings are hurt Flert, but that was the straw for me of people asking questions to which the answers are readily available on this miracle called the internet. Generally, when a dictionary doesn't have a word, it means the word does not exist or it has a different suffix. Dicitionary.com provided you a list of 20 alternative spellings from which to select. Being a poor speller, myself, and having spent at least half my youth paging through the dead tree dictionary looking up implausible English spellings, I found this list to be a Godsend. Only 45 years late. In that list I found hustings and learned that it is plural only. Thanks for helping to erode at least that little bit of my immence ignorance. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2004-10-25 6:38:58 PM |
| #30 "That next week's presidential election is the closest in US history seems certain." Folks, the A-rabs don't need to fret. It ain't gonna be that close. Bush will win over 300 electoral votes and there ain't gonna be no Floridas, no dimpled or hangin chads. The Democrats ain't gonna take to the streets, and and we'll have to wash the dishes again on Wednesday. |
| Posted by: Hank 2004-10-25 6:21:37 PM |
| #29 Actually Ms D, "husting" isn't in your dictionary. So your sarcasm is unappreciated and your answer betrays your ignorance. |
| Posted by: Flert Granter3118 2004-10-25 6:14:43 PM |
| #28 Thank you, Mrs. Davis! The LLL foaming-at-the-mouth has worried me. It is great to get a sense of perspective. |
| Posted by: SR71 2004-10-25 6:09:10 PM |
| #27 I'm keeping an eye out for Mr. D. I sense his presence. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-10-25 6:07:46 PM |
| #26 ROFL! Awesome! Bravo, Mrs D! The myns, they're wired that way. I have no idea about the wymyns. Still a complete mystery, lol! |
| Posted by: .com 2004-10-25 6:05:01 PM |
| #25 That's just mean,Mrs.D.(lol) |
| Posted by: raptor 2004-10-25 6:03:07 PM |
| #24 What we have here is the failure to understand what's truly at stake for the left. Most of these lefties we are talking about are 45-60 years of age. They idolize Bill Clinton. They have come to the realization that like the calendar they are entering the autumn of their years. They have dumped/been dumped by their spouse. They recall that the only time they could get reliably laid, outside marriage, was at anti-war protests and rock concerts. Recent experience has led them to believe they need to seek out such venues to "get satisfaction." So they are turning this election into a rerun of the Days of Rage in the hope that they can "get some". But don't look for any actual action on the streets. There won't be any there either. This will not go down in history as the erection election. However, next summer in Woodstock... |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2004-10-25 5:54:36 PM |
| #23 Lefties know how to burn paper mache effigies but do they know how to shoot guns? |
| Posted by: V is for Victory 2004-10-25 5:23:21 PM |
| #22 LOL Mrs D. I gotta get me one of dem dictionaries. LOL first link on my home page dictionary is dot com. I don't see any tanks in the street kind of civil war. I see left vs right. With the left trying to round up all the "wrong thinking right" and inter them as a "danger to the state." We are talking about John Kerry here. I may have my tin foil hat on too tight but I am keeping my powder very dry. When I see the frothey hate coming out of these folks it's just plain scary. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-10-25 4:47:05 PM |
| #21 Something you find in a dictionary. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2004-10-25 3:28:09 PM |
| #20 what's a "husting"? |
| Posted by: Gruck Thruth8332 2004-10-25 3:16:40 PM |
| #19 I think large scale violence is a distinct possibility, far-left agitators have been pushing for it for years and this is their chance. At the same time, I do not think that violence would seriously delay the result, let alone change it, but legal wrangling might. In the worst case, Dubya's term expires on January 20, hell or high water, and Dennis Hastert becomes President. We will go on regardless of what the barbarian hordes do, here or abroad. The net result would be the media-culture left's climactic grab for power and their final extinction. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2004-10-25 3:09:08 PM |
| #18 I meant American tanks to shut down the election. you know coup, or civil war. We don't work that way, even when we're freaking out over idiot Floridians who can't vote properly we sit it out patiently and let the system work. Yes I hope we don't have to go through that again this time. If it's not close, they can't cheat. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2004-10-25 2:44:50 PM |
| #17 MK, You are so right because any Arab leader getting less than 99% of the popular vote cannot possibly claim a mandate. |
| Posted by: Dreadnought 2004-10-25 1:52:45 PM |
| #16 Want some real tinfoil hat material - ever hear of John Titor? He was supposedly a "time traveler" from 2036. He posted on the internet back in 2000 about a civil war starting around this election. SPOOOOOKY I tell ya! |
| Posted by: Yosemite Sam 2004-10-25 1:51:31 PM |
| #15 Agree with 5032, we survived 1777, 1814, 1863, 1868, 1968 and Disco. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-10-25 1:39:53 PM |
| #14 Michael- Understand what you're saying, but keep this in mind - if this situation were transferred whole to an Arab nation, it would be a civil war. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2004-10-25 1:01:34 PM |
| #13 Suppose the election came down to one vote in one state and that vote was fraudulent. Would people follow the fanatics afraid of Bush’s totalitarian state or those angry with Kerry and lead the US into civil strife? If the election is so close that a few thousand votes from a couple hundred million voters determines the result, then there is no clear mandate from the people. The winner depends on chance and the losers should accept that fact. Our country can survive four years of Kerry or four more years of Bush. I believe the country can even survive civil disorder promoted by fanatics unwilling to accept election results. However, such disorder would greatly hurt the US in its WoT. I’m hoping for a clear winner with a clear mandate. |
| Posted by: Anonymous5032 2004-10-25 12:55:55 PM |
| #12 Well, they may be right or they may be wrong. Me, I am preparing for the worst and praying that I am just being a silly goose. I find it interesting that even the rag heads can see there is something very wrong here. And I do agree their their terming it as a 2nd civil war. I've been thinking that for a long time, but was afraid to say it hoping that if I did not say it it would not be true. But is is. |
| Posted by: Michael 2004-10-25 10:42:24 AM |
| #11 If it totally looks like an election by grand theft expect to see trouble. I will not go peacefully into the night of John Kerry;s patroit act goons come calling. No one's coming for anyone in the event of a socialist win in November. Far, far more important is to ensure our war fighters are safe from leftist engineering of the military, than any goon coming for anyone. I would be more scared of what the left does when Dubya does win. Oh and did I tell you? It will be Bush by a super landslide. You heard it here first. As a matter of fact this is the umpteenth time you've heard it here; But ya gotta show up at the polls in November. |
| Posted by: badanov 2004-10-25 9:19:07 AM |
| #10 Tom - too right. I did add "yet" - in classic butt-coverage, lol! |
| Posted by: .com 2004-10-25 9:10:27 AM |
| #9 .com, you've forgotten -- U.S. tanks are U.N. tanks if sKerry wins. |
| Posted by: Tom 2004-10-25 9:07:41 AM |
| #8 Lol - that's cuz the UN doesn't have any tanks - yet. It could borrow the machetes, however, from its Hutu buddies in Rwanda. Used, but still servicable. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-10-25 8:44:12 AM |
| #7 I predict that no matter how bad the post election fiasco gets we don't see tanks in the streets or mechete wielding madmen attacking people at the polls because their guy is losing. |
| Posted by: RJ Schwarz 2004-10-25 8:40:24 AM |
| #6 SPOD, you aren't going to do anything to anyone because no goons are goind to come caling on you unless you go Padilla. Whoever wins, it looks to be close and there will be lots of charges and wrangling, but power will be transferred peacefully. Focusing on our divisions may provide the Arabs a lot of vicarious pleasure anticipating a civil war but ultimately it will serve mainly to give their people a lesson in how a constitutional republic works even when there are deep divisions in a society. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2004-10-25 8:28:13 AM |
| #5 Even if the Pubs loose the Senate, they will block Dhimmicrat judicial appointees - probably at all levels. That is the problem with the Dhim's program: they burn down the house to regain power. There are probably many folks who agree with SPoD. |
| Posted by: SR71 2004-10-25 8:26:41 AM |
| #4 In February, Israel is expected to start withdrawing troops from Gaza. This would require American leadership in forming an international peacekeeping force. WTF! Since when is the US the police force for the PLO? You mean Yasshole can't keep his own folks in line? |
| Posted by: Spot 2004-10-25 7:38:37 AM |
| #3 If it totally looks like an election by grand theft expect to see trouble. I will not go peacefully into the night of John Kerry;s patroit act goons come calling. We are talking about a man that gave aid and comfort in a time of war here. He and the folk around him are never to be trusted. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-10-25 6:26:41 AM |
| #2 What nonsense! After the election, the sitting president remains in full control until he hands over the reins on January 20th when the electee is sworn in by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. If Kerry wins, perhaps Bush won't start any new initiatives that would obligate the new president to continue, but there is certainly no issue with him continuing ongoing activities, or making decisions on his day-to-day responsibilities. Looking at the article's list of concerns, the only ones where American involvement is necessary are: Afghanistan, Iraq and Democrats fighting finalization of results here at home. All the rest should be handled by the responsible parties. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2004-10-25 6:26:31 AM |
| #1 If there is any problems beyond the lawyers getting fiesty post 11-3 it will IMO most likely come from the Democratic side of the electorate or farther afield from the fringe elements we saw in Seattle. If Kerry wins and the Pubs retasin the Senate I really don't see them being as tight assed about appointments as the Dims have been. Yes they'll fight over any potential SC nomminee but then that is to be expected ever since Bork |
| Posted by: Cheaderhead 2004-10-25 6:13:13 AM |