Dorothy Parvaz is applauding Seattle initiative I-97 ("Divest from War"), "An ordinance to divest Seattle Employees' Retirement System funds from stocks and bonds funding war and occupation in the Middle East".
I-97 is a one-sided campaign to both undermine the U.S. efforts to stabilize Iraq and to boycott Israel and its suppliers. At the same time, it does not target any of the various thuggish regimes in the Middle East which support anti-Iraqi and anti-American terrorists in Iraq and/or facilitate terrorist attacks and threaten to exterminate Israel.
The anti-Israel part of the initiative is an attempt at economic warfare meant to force the Jewish state to unilaterally disarm so it can't protect its citizens from terrorism, and worse.
Parvaz and the "Divest from War" losers make about as much of a contribution to world peace as these folks.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at July 19, 2008 12:03 PM | Email ThisSaid efforts having failed for five long years, I doubt this will make things much worse. Defunding war profiteers is always a worthy goal. (If "stability" is, in and of itself, such a worthy goal, why did we remove a stable regime?)
"...it does not target any of the various thuggish regimes in the Middle East..."
That's no way to talk about Mr. Bush's close personal friends, The House of Saud!
"...so it can't protect its citizens from terrorism, and worse."
For almost seven years, our President and his supporters have told us how terrorism is the worst thing ever, worse than nuclear-armed Communists and rampaging Nazis. And yet, you still say there's something worse than terror! Why do you doubt President Bush so?
"Parvaz and the "Divest from War" losers..."
Name-calling is the most effective form of argument. (At least amongst the methods you know.)
Thanks for the notice. I'll print and sign today!
Posted by: tensor on July 19, 2008 01:00 PMYou mean Mr Clinton's personal friends, The House Of Saud.
Posted by: pbj on July 19, 2008 02:16 PMSo far this month, there have been 5 casualties from the insurgency in Iraq this month.
Compare that to peaceful London. Just last week 4 people were stabbed to death in the genteel lanes.
Meanwhile, Iraq is back to being a major oil producer again because "concerns over security, sabotage and smuggling are fading as the government in Baghdad takes control of oil-rich areas that were run by rogue Shiite militias just a few months ago".
What was that about the lack of stability in Iraq? You really think the Iraq war is an issue anymore?
It's not a war anymore, it hasn't been for a few years. Iraq is stabilized and well on the road to recovery. But you'll just ignore the actual facts, won't you...
What happens when your prophet Obama comes back and declares Iraq is stable and quiet, and not the quagmire he and the other defeatists claimed?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 19, 2008 02:48 PMThose $1,000,000 toilets that are for sale on eBay for $89,000 each?
Seattle flushes its money
Democrats can't even keep city toilets clean, and they think they should run the country?
Another stupid decision by the City Klowncil, but at least they felt good about themselves. That's all that matters.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on July 19, 2008 03:54 PMAlso, does anyone know if she ever re-registered to vote? Remember, Stefan caught her last year registered at the PI rather than her home because she didn't want anyone to know where she lived - because SOME of the laws do not apply to the media elite (such as D. Parvaz) but only to the rest of us!
Posted by: Jim Johnson, Jr. on July 19, 2008 04:35 PMAnyone read the story on how Duke Cunningham's bribes cost American Soldier's lives? Probably not....
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on July 19, 2008 05:02 PMGuess what - your liberal friends have a habit of just making stuff up. And you have a habit of spewing it back up. Neither original content, nor real content. Regurgitated lies, all around!
So where are we not building bridges? Where are we not building dikes? Because that is what you're claiming. Just more empty lies, right?
I bet you will run away again, never to answer for your lies...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 19, 2008 05:09 PMmicromanaging morons, all
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on July 19, 2008 10:44 PMThen you guys can sell each other shots of espresso on Skid Row...like you used to.
There is no profit in peace.
In fact, we even invade and occupy countries that are little or no threat to us, and lie about the reasons why.
By the way, warmongers are in both parties.
Imagine if Boeing built more things that helped people, and fewer things that only kill people (usually the innocent) folks?
Some people rejoice at the thought of throwing trillions down the military rat hole (with little no no oversight), as long as they can borrow it form China......
Not killing innocent people is almost too much to imagine isn't it.....
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on July 20, 2008 10:26 AMThere is no profit in peace.
On the contrary, there is so much profit in peace, that it makes fighting for peace that much more important.
In fact, we even invade and occupy countries that are little or no threat to us, and lie about the reasons why.
Flat out lies. Citations, please?
By the way, warmongers are in both parties.
Finally the liar says something that is actually true. Of course, it is the broadest of all generalizations, you were bound to get it right.
Imagine if Boeing built more things that helped people, and fewer things that only kill people (usually the innocent) folks?
Yes, all those 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, 787 and helicopters and satellite launch systems and wind turbines they make don't help anyone, they only kill!
Wrong again, liar.
Some people rejoice at the thought of throwing trillions down the military rat hole (with little no no oversight), as long as they can borrow it form China......
Liar again. Who are those people? Give a name.
Not killing innocent people is almost too much to imagine isn't it.....
The fact that the US military goes to such extraordinary lengths to NOT take innocent life shows just how much a liar and anti-American you really are.
Heck, she was all a-twitter and spewing rumors that Jenna Bush was prego back when she got engaged. Anybody see the baby yet? No? You mean it was more slanderous BS from the left? From an 'objective' media source?
Yeah. Shocked the hell out of me, too.
Why anybody other than the leftist lemmings pay any attention to hacks like Parvaz and Connelly is beyond me.
Ignore them.
Posted by: jimg on July 20, 2008 11:46 AMGo ask the author of the original post. The first line of the second paragraph implies Iraq needs American stabilizing. Let me know how your dispute with him goes.
"You really think the Iraq war is an issue anymore?"
Anywhere American soldiers get wounded and killed is an issue to me. Anywhere American tax money is spent is an issue with me. You're welcome to flaunt your lack of caring about those issues, if you like.
"It's not a war anymore, it hasn't been for a few years. Iraq is stabilized and well on the road to recovery."
Great! So, our soldiers will start coming home, right? Please tell us when that will happen.
"But you'll just ignore the actual facts, won't you..."
Again, tell it to the original author of this post.
"What is Parvaz's ethnicity?"
Next up: right-wingers whine about liberals calling them racists.
Posted by: tensor on July 20, 2008 02:06 PMGo ask the author of the original post. The first line of the second paragraph implies Iraq needs American stabilizing. Let me know how your dispute with him goes.
No thanks... He's just a talking head editorialist. Look at what the Iraqis are saying. How they are moving back by the tens of thousands. How businesses are starting up again. Don't need to look any further than the resurgence of the Iraqi economy to see it's stabilized.
Anywhere American soldiers get wounded and killed is an issue to me. Anywhere American tax money is spent is an issue with me. You're welcome to flaunt your lack of caring about those issues, if you like.
Ever spend time in uniform? I bet you haven't. I did my tours, and I worked for the military as a uniformed member and a contractor. So get off your horse about not caring...
As far as deaths go, then I suppose you are absolutely LIVID about the number of deaths that happened under the Clinton's watch - more than died in Iraq.
Ask your typical Iraqi veteran or currently deployed soldier. Overwhelmingly you'll find they support the mission. And given re-enlistment and recruitment goals are being exceeded, so do most civilians.
Great! So, our soldiers will start coming home, right? Please tell us when that will happen.
Don't really read much other than your Leftist outlets, do you? Drawdown has been happening for 8 months so far...
Again, tell it to the original author of this post.
No, I tell it to you since you obviously hold the original writer in such high regard as to quote the article. You used it to make your rhetorical point; if it's bunk, so's your point. You can't shift that blame...
So tell me, since you like to ignore facts: where did you complain and protest the higher number of military deaths - both in absolute terms AND as a percentage of total active duty military - that occurred under the Clinton Administration? Never mind the LOSS of freedom for millions of Bosnians under Clinton's watch...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 20, 2008 06:48 PMWell, if Iraq is stable, that destroys the premise of the author's argument in that paragraph, and his point is therefore invalid. You won't get an argument from me on that!
As for the rest of your assertions, they lie beyond a discussion of Seattle's I-97. Good day, and thanks for your support.
Posted by: tensor on July 21, 2008 12:07 AMD. Parvaz and her ilk are idiots. Guess what - the military solution, the surge, worked. And it's already over.
But I have no fear they will claim their clamor and clucking was the reason the military draw-down in Iraq is well under way, all the time ignoring the fact is that the military solution to a military problem worked.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 23, 2008 03:41 PM