User talk:Maximus1938

A dichotomy of positions 1968 - 2008
In 1968, it is my understanding Joesph Lieberman campaigned for Robert Kennedy and the Senator's stand against the Vietnam war. During the Vietnam conflict, the Senator was able through deferments not serve in the military. He graduated from Stamford High School with my brother in law, John Pierne, who went on to University of Connecticut, received his degree, married my sister in 1965 and volunteered in the Air Force, where he served to the late 1970s. My brother in law served in Vietnam. Senator Lieberman did not. Forty years later, Senator Lieberman is a hawk on the conflict in Iraq and Iran. When he discusses sending American boys and girls to fight and die in Iraq and Afghanistan, is it not fair to ask the Senator, If you are for an expansion of war now where American interests are at stake, why were you against the Vietnam and why did you not serve in Vietnam when many believed we were fighting to stop the spread of Communism in South East Asia, but now you are in favor of war. Is it therefore not a basic question to ask, do we have a choice to fight, or not fight in war? Is it not a fair questions to ask? If one is against war and fights politically as the future senator did in 1968, to end a war and also does not serve, that is being consistent in your beliefs. And you would not expect that person, now US Senator to be consistent against fighting in war. But, there is no consistency here. The Senator is urging an expansion of war in South Asia that could possibly take us into Iran, and if Russia believes her national interests are threatened a 3rd World War could ensue. The issues over Vietnam 40 years ago, also included an expansion of the war into Cambodia and North Vietnam with the spread of Communism into other areas in South East Asia. It was called the "Domino Theory." I deeply believe these are questions to ask the Senator when he declares we should contine in Iraq and to bomb military sites in Iran. maximus1938