Jim (Con't): The Iraq protests. What do they mean?
Mike: They mean that the Iraqi people have been patient, they have waited and waited for a responsive government. They've had enough and more power to them.
Betty: I found it hilarious that, on Sunday, Prime Minister Abdul Abil-Mahdi was calling on the protesters to cease protesting because, he insisted, it was hurting Iraqi businesses. Does he not grasp that many of the protesters are protesting the lack of jobs? How out of it is he?
Dona: One thing I've especially enjoyed at THE COMMON ILLS is how we're able to see a wide range of protesters. Women are participating, the disabled and challenged are participating. It's a real cross section of society.
Jim: When were the last big protests?
C.I.: Me? There have been protests constantly. Last year saw some very big protests. I think, in terms of intimidating Iraq's puppet government, there hasn't been anything like this since the second half of 2011 and continuing on through February of 2012.
Jim: What ended those?
C.I.: Those protests were about many things. Among the issues were corruption. After these protests began, the Arab Spring emerged in the region -- though Iraq was not lumped in with that by the press. The emergence of the Arab Spring frightened then prime minister -- and forever thug -- Nouri al-Maliki. He announced that if the protesters would cease protesting and go home, he would end corruption in 100 days. They took him at his word. He did nothing.
Jim: And currently Mahdi's insisting that he will step down.
Ty: But he hasn't. It's another Nouri move. I'll step down, I'll step down. When?
Jess: I wouldn't trust any prime minister if I was in Iraq. And the protesters have called for him to step down as has Shi'ite cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr.
Rebecca: I don't get, excuse me on this but maybe someone else is confused, how he became prime minister, Abdul Adil Mahdi, to begin with?
Jim: They do have elections. It's a different system. And sometimes it's not really a system. C.I.?
C.I.: Per the country's Constitution, after the election, the group that got the most vote puts forward someone who is named prime minister-designate by the President of Iraq. Per the Constitution, that person then has 30 days to form a Cabinet. That is the only duty they have to be moved from prime minister designate to prime minister. At the end of October, Mahdi was moved to prime minister despite the fact that he had failed to form a full Cabinet. For example, the head of the security ministries -- the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Defense -- were empty. He should not have been moved to prime minister. The President of Iraq should have instead named someone else to be prime minister, per the Constitution.
Jess: And this has gone on repeatedly, this move, but Mahdi was supposed to follow the process and had insisted he would. Not only did he not follow it, it was the end of May before he named a Minister of Defense and a Minister of the Interior.
Rebecca: So it's really no surprise that he can't govern. That's why that test -- the only requirement -- exists. It's to see if you can govern. If you're unable to horse trade and whatever to put together a Cabinet in 30 days, you're going to be unable to govern and he certainly was.
Betty: One thing I'll bring up is Nathan Irish died in Iraq last week. He was a US service member. He'd been there only a brief time. C.I.?
C.I.: Per his FACEBOOK account, he deployed to Iraq in August.
Betty: Thank you. So when we talk about this at my work, I encountered a number of people who did not know that US troops were still on the ground in Iraq. It's really amazing how this is news to so many people.
Ty: And it's news because the media really doesn't cover it. And it's news because CODESTINK and so many others that we are supposed to trust do nothing about these wars. They're not trying to stop them, they're not insisting that US troops come home. They dabble. And when they're not making demands, it's very easy for people to forget because they think, "They must be gone or CODESTINK would be raising hell."
Jim: No one raises hell these days, they all just go along to get along.
Dona: So true. Ava?
Ava: There just isn't a lot of effort being made regarding anti-war activity. That's the truth. Is there interest? Yes, we see it on campus after campus. But there's Mike Prysner and that's about it in terms of anything resembling work to end the wars. I wish that wasn't the case but it is. Go to even World Can't Wait and marvel over how far through their posts you have to go before coming up with a post about the wars. You have to drop back to May 26th and this is November 4th. That's ridiculous. I don't have a lot of respect for them.
Jess: I think one of the reasons -- Let me back up. The reason the antiwar crowd packed their tents and went home was because Barack Obama got elected in 2008 and that was all some of them cared about. They just the war as a club to hit Bully Boy Bush was. Now some of us hoped that if these wars were still going -- and they are -- after Barack was out of the White House that we'd see a real movement towards ending the wars start back up. Now this is what I was going to say before. Maybe it's hard to call for an end to wars since Trump is president? He wants to end the Syrian war -- or says he does -- and because it's him, people who should be saying, "Hell yes!" are instead whining and complaining. I didn't vote for Trump. But I don't plan my life around him. If he wants to pull all US troops out of Syria, I'd say that's a good thing. I'd applaud that no matter who did it.
Jim: Good points. What else do we have?
Betty: I'd like to point out something C.I.'s been noting. The western press will do anything in the world to cover anything but the protests in Iraq. And C.I.'s been noting that for weeks now but, starting Sunday, you will see various people in the Arab world also Tweeting about this. I had said I'd pass on the next roundtable just because I felt like I was hogging time but when Jim said it was going to include the protests, I had to participate because this really matters.
Rebecca: I agree. I would also note that Mike's covered the protests at his site. Of course, here at this site we've noted the protests from the beginning. But I could do more and I should so I'll blog about them tonight. Betty, hold me to it.
Ty: That'd be good but let's also point out, Rebecca, you do repost the Iraq snapshot in full each day you post so that does include the news that way. And, for example, you writing about DYNASTY in a post pulls fans of that show over and provides the opportunity for them to read the snapshot and be informed.
Mike: Do we think the government is going to be responsive to the protesters?
Dona: What do you think?
Mike: I would hope so. This is really a sign of how much the whole thing has failed. That's the puppet government. That's the system that the US imposed.
C.I.: Mike, do you think it was intended to fail? Naomi Klein's "Baghdad Year Zero" and all of that.
Mike: That's a good point. I think a strong argument can be made that we, the US government, set it up to fail. We wanted the people divided so that they couldn't resist -- the Iraqi people. We put terrorists and thugs in charge for that reason. It would make perfect sense, when you think in that mindset, for the plan all along to be to create a system that worked against the people and prevented real change. Yes, I would argue that it was intended to fail.
Jim: I think that we're all in agreement on that. Reminder, this is a rush transcript.
