PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul: Flyers Are Like Cattle



megimoo
11-21-2010, 10:07 PM
The Texas Congressman says that it's time to stop putting up with invasive searches at airports

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jXB_NNXHlY&feature=player_embedded

http://theweek.com/article/index/209597/ron-paul-flyers-are-like-cattle

Articulate_Ape
11-21-2010, 10:19 PM
It's incredible that we continue to pretend that we don't know who to look for. :rolleyes:

Madisonian
11-22-2010, 09:11 AM
Ron Paul "Enough is enough"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-N5adYM7Kw

Of course Ron Paul is a nut job so who cares what he thinks, right?:confused:

Molon Labe
11-22-2010, 12:16 PM
If you're fighting the terrorists at the airport, then it's over already and we are in the same place we were on September 10 2001 if that's the case. The intelligence community is the problem.

NJCardFan
11-22-2010, 05:00 PM
If you're fighting the terrorists at the airport, then it's over already and we are in the same place we were on September 10 2001 if that's the case. The intelligence community is the problem.

The intelligence community is not the problem. They know who to look for. It's PC nonsense that is the problem. It's the refusal to see the 800lb gorilla in the room so as not to offend someone or hurt someone's feelings. It's like when the government was fighting the mob. They saw a mafioso in every Italian. Well, considering that most mafioso's were Italian, it was good, smart thinking.

lacarnut
11-22-2010, 05:55 PM
The intelligence community is not the problem. They know who to look for. It's PC nonsense that is the problem. It's the refusal to see the 800lb gorilla in the room so as not to offend someone or hurt someone's feelings. It's like when the government was fighting the mob. They saw a mafioso in every Italian. Well, considering that most mafioso's were Italian, it was good, smart thinking.

A winnah.

Jfor
11-22-2010, 08:55 PM
Of course Ron Paul is a nut job so who cares what he thinks, right?:confused:

Ron Paul is a nutjob in regards to his foreign policy. That is why he was only a blip on the Presidential radar.

m00
11-22-2010, 11:28 PM
Ron Paul is a nutjob in regards to his foreign policy. That is why he was only a blip on the Presidential radar.

Why do you think he was a nutjob?

Rockntractor
11-23-2010, 12:03 AM
Why do you think he was a nutjob?

Don't you know if you disagree with someone on one issue they are a nut job?:confused:

Bleda
11-23-2010, 01:24 AM
“One one issue”? That's a bit of an understatement, don't you think? Look up his views on the US military and intelligence community, Israel, 9/11, Iran, terrorism, and pretty much anything similar. The man is so anti-American, insane, and -- dare I say it -- evil it's mind-boggling,

lacarnut
11-23-2010, 01:44 AM
“One one issue”? That's a bit of an understatement, don't you think? Look up his views on the US military and intelligence community, Israel, 9/11, Iran, terrorism, and pretty much anything similar. The man is so anti-American, insane, and -- dare I say it -- evil it's mind-boggling,

I am not a R.P. fan but you must have him mixed up with your boy Obama-dingaling.

Bleda
11-23-2010, 03:08 AM
I am not a R.P. fan but you must have him mixed up with your boy Obama-dingaling.

No, but that would be pretty understandable. The far left and the far right aren't very different when it comes to the things I mentioned.

“Rarely do we hear that Iraq has never committed any aggression against the United States. No one in the media questions our aggression against Iraq for the past 12 years by continuous bombing and imposed sanctions responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children. [...] Only tyrants can take a nation to war without the consent of the people. The planned war against Iraq without a Declaration of War is illegal. It is unwise because of many unforeseen consequences that are likely to result. It is immoral and unjust, because it has nothing to do with US security and because Iraq has not initiated aggression against us.” -- February 26, 2002

“We are escalating our sharp rhetoric toward Iran, we're deploying additional carrier group and Patriot missiles to the region. And, although Iran has approached the United States to establish serious dialog two times since 9/11, they have been rebuffed both times...”

“In recent decades our policies have been driven by neo-conservative empire radicalism, profiteering in the military industrial complex, misplaced do-good internationalism, mercantilistic notions regarding the need to control natural resources, and blind loyalty to various governments in the Middle East.”

“They’re terrorists because we’re occupiers.”

“There’s been a coup, have you heard? It’s the CIA coup. The CIA runs everything, they run the military. They’re the ones who are over there lobbing missiles and bombs on countries. … And of course the CIA is every bit as secretive as the Federal Reserve. … And yet think of the harm they have done since they were established after World War II. They are a government unto themselves. They’re in businesses, in drug businesses, they take out dictators … We need to take out the CIA.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-26/the-craziest-town-hall-ever/full/

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/225943.php

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/11/02/ron-paul-on-iranian-nukes-i-wouldnt-do-that-much-about-it/

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/03/video-ron-paul-denounces-israels-flotilla-raid-of-course/

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/01/video-ron-paul-spins-for-iran-of-course/

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/02/27/video-ron-paul-knocks-paper-money-afghanistan-surge-at-cpac/

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/05/video-ron-paul-laments-israels-preemptive-war/

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/16/ron-paul-cant-bring-himself-to-vote-for-resolution-expressing-sympathy-for-burma/

The House once voted 405-1 for a resolution in support of the Iranian dissidents and condemning the Iranian government. Guess who was the lone holdout.

There's more, if you want. And I didn't even say anything about the newsletters.

Madisonian
11-23-2010, 07:18 AM
“One one issue”? That's a bit of an understatement, don't you think? Look up his views on the US military and intelligence community, Israel, 9/11, Iran, terrorism, and pretty much anything similar. The man is so anti-American, insane, and -- dare I say it -- evil it's mind-boggling,

While I certainly don't agree with Paul on everything, most of his views on what you mentioned are based on an originialist interpretaion of the Constitution and on that basis I agree with a lot of them.

Jefferson, Madison and others warned of foreign entanglements and getting involved in the policies of other nations as a matter of US Federal policy and also warned of the danger to Liberty with regard to a standing army. Does this make them nut jobs as well?

Are you saying the trillions (yes, with a T) that we have spent on foreign aid and US supplied military protection to those that would like to see us dead (except for our cash, of course) has been of benefit to us?

Madisonian
11-23-2010, 07:35 AM
No, but that would be pretty understandable. The far left and the far right aren't very different when it comes to the things I mentioned.

“Rarely do we hear that Iraq has never committed any aggression against the United States. No one in the media questions our aggression against Iraq for the past 12 years by continuous bombing and imposed sanctions responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children. [...] Only tyrants can take a nation to war without the consent of the people. The planned war against Iraq without a Declaration of War is illegal. It is unwise because of many unforeseen consequences that are likely to result. It is immoral and unjust, because it has nothing to do with US security and because Iraq has not initiated aggression against us.” -- February 26, 2002

Constitutionally, this is a true statment and looking back over the last almost 9 years, the "unforeseen consequences" is quite prophetic.


“In recent decades our policies have been driven by neo-conservative empire radicalism, profiteering in the military industrial complex, misplaced do-good internationalism, mercantilistic notions regarding the need to control natural resources, and blind loyalty to various governments in the Middle East.”

For some, truth hurts.


“They’re terrorists because we’re occupiers.”

If China landed troops in this country and our civilian population fought back, to them they would be insurgents or terrorists and to us they would be freedom fighters. Its all a matter of perspective


“There’s been a coup, have you heard? It’s the CIA coup. The CIA runs everything, they run the military. They’re the ones who are over there lobbing missiles and bombs on countries. … And of course the CIA is every bit as secretive as the Federal Reserve. … And yet think of the harm they have done since they were established after World War II. They are a government unto themselves. They’re in businesses, in drug businesses, they take out dictators … We need to take out the CIA.”

Much of this is rhetoric, but the CIA is largely unanswerable to anyone and could be considered a government unto themselves. The CIA was originally an intelligence gathering and reporting agency and has evolved to be what it is today and its covert operations have no Constitutional basis or authority.

Wei Wu Wei
11-23-2010, 10:47 AM
Constitutionally, this is a true statment and looking back over the last almost 9 years, the "unforeseen consequences" is quite prophetic.



For some, truth hurts.



If China landed troops in this country and our civilian population fought back, to them they would be insurgents or terrorists and to us they would be freedom fighters. Its all a matter of perspective



Much of this is rhetoric, but the CIA is largely unanswerable to anyone and could be considered a government unto themselves. The CIA was originally an intelligence gathering and reporting agency and has evolved to be what it is today and its covert operations have no Constitutional basis or authority.

agree

Wei Wu Wei
11-23-2010, 10:54 AM
It's incredible that we continue to pretend that we don't know who to look for. :rolleyes:

We don't know what to look for. We can narrow the search by knowing what to look for but that doesnt' help much either. I'm going to guess, and correct me if I'm wrong, that your idea of proper screening is singling out anyone who "looks muslim", but that would be stupid because no terrorist has attacked our soil while wearing traditional Imam clothing. They didn't even have significant facial hair or whatever other stereotype you might look for.

Truth is, most of the terrorists on our soil have been not identified as Muslim and those that have, including the 9/11 hijackers, looked just like anyone else.

Unless you mean "just look for brown guys or anyone speaking sand-talk" in which case you have (in many airports) the majority of the people in there.

megimoo
11-23-2010, 11:06 AM
We don't know what to look for. We can narrow the search by knowing what to look for but that doesnt' help much either. I'm going to guess, and correct me if I'm wrong, that your idea of proper screening is singling out anyone who "looks muslim", but that would be stupid because no terrorist has attacked our soil while wearing traditional Imam clothing. They didn't even have significant facial hair or whatever other stereotype you might look for.

Truth is, most of the terrorists on our soil have been not identified as Muslim and those that have, including the 9/11 hijackers, looked just like anyone else.

Unless you mean "just look for brown guys or anyone speaking sand-talk" in which case you have (in many airports) the majority of the people in there.Look for a shifty looking Arab taking small steps because he has five pounds of Semtex shoved up his butt !

noonwitch
11-23-2010, 12:06 PM
Look for a shifty looking Arab taking small steps because he has five pounds of Semtex shoved up his butt !

The underwear bomber is not an arab-he was a baby-faced african guy. He wouldn't have fit the profile, he looked like he could have been a kid on my caseload.

Although, anyone making small steps and walking like he's got something shoved up his butt should be searched by TSA, arab or not.

Molon Labe
11-23-2010, 12:41 PM
The intelligence community is not the problem. They know who to look for. It's PC nonsense that is the problem. It's the refusal to see the 800lb gorilla in the room so as not to offend someone or hurt someone's feelings. It's like when the government was fighting the mob. They saw a mafioso in every Italian. Well, considering that most mafioso's were Italian, it was good, smart thinking.

We will have to disagree. Have you read the 9-11 commission? Have you read the mistakes the intelligence community is STILL making regarding terror organzations? Sure it's better to trash the PC nonsense but if people think that any major terrorist org is plotting something along the lines of a 9-11 super attack regarding airplanes again, that's unrealistic.

Molon Labe
11-23-2010, 12:42 PM
Constitutionally, this is a true statment and looking back over the last almost 9 years, the "unforeseen consequences" is quite prophetic.

For some, truth hurts.

If China landed troops in this country and our civilian population fought back, to them they would be insurgents or terrorists and to us they would be freedom fighters. Its all a matter of perspective

Much of this is rhetoric, but the CIA is largely unanswerable to anyone and could be considered a government unto themselves. The CIA was originally an intelligence gathering and reporting agency and has evolved to be what it is today and its covert operations have no Constitutional basis or authority.

QFT

One gues what I'd be doing if a foreign government were occupying this country or hanging out building bases in Mexico or Canada.

Odysseus
11-23-2010, 02:43 PM
It's incredible that we continue to pretend that we don't know who to look for. :rolleyes:
We're much more concerned with the appearance of safety than actually achieving it.

The intelligence community is not the problem. They know who to look for. It's PC nonsense that is the problem. It's the refusal to see the 800lb gorilla in the room so as not to offend someone or hurt someone's feelings. It's like when the government was fighting the mob. They saw a mafioso in every Italian. Well, considering that most mafioso's were Italian, it was good, smart thinking.
Except that they didn't see every Italian as a mafioso, but they did recognize that there were Italian mobs, and they didn't divert resources to oversight of Swedish businesses or social clubs.

While I certainly don't agree with Paul on everything, most of his views on what you mentioned are based on an originialist interpretaion of the Constitution and on that basis I agree with a lot of them.

Jefferson, Madison and others warned of foreign entanglements and getting involved in the policies of other nations as a matter of US Federal policy and also warned of the danger to Liberty with regard to a standing army. Does this make them nut jobs as well?

Are you saying the trillions (yes, with a T) that we have spent on foreign aid and US supplied military protection to those that would like to see us dead (except for our cash, of course) has been of benefit to us?
The founders were wary of foreign entanglements at a time when the US was far weaker comparatively than we are now. Jefferson and the other founders were not isolationists, and they would not have hesitated to fight to protect American interests. If the impressment of American sailors led us to fight Britain within a few years of the Revolution, and the Barbary Pirate attacks led us to our first war against Jihadis, imagine what they would have done after 9/11.

We don't know what to look for. We can narrow the search by knowing what to look for but that doesnt' help much either. I'm going to guess, and correct me if I'm wrong, that your idea of proper screening is singling out anyone who "looks muslim", but that would be stupid because no terrorist has attacked our soil while wearing traditional Imam clothing. They didn't even have significant facial hair or whatever other stereotype you might look for.

Truth is, most of the terrorists on our soil have been not identified as Muslim and those that have, including the 9/11 hijackers, looked just like anyone else.

Unless you mean "just look for brown guys or anyone speaking sand-talk" in which case you have (in many airports) the majority of the people in there.
Uh, no. You look for specific indicators, which they repeatedly fail to do. For example, single males, traveling on one-way tickets that were paid for in cash, originating in airports with lax security, and who have previously been reported to US authorities or are on no-fly or terror watch lists, would be a good place to start. Noonwitch mentioned the underwear bomber, who met every criteria that I described, but who was still able to get on a plane. The reason that this latest set of intrusive search procedures is so infuriating is that it is based on the flawed assumption that an octagenarian nun is as likely to be a terrorist as a Muslim male, that anybody and everybody is an equal threat, and that we must all therefore submit to ridiculous security measures that will ultimately decrease security.

Why will these new measures decrease security? Simple:
A TSA agent who is patting down a screaming toddler is too busy to observe the crowd that is lined up, and will miss behavioral cues that indicate terrorists. That is what is known as misdirection. Focusing resources away from the threat means that the threat has greater freedom to act.
The longer lines create a target rich environment for terrorists. Instead of detonating on the plane and racking up a body count, a terrorist can walk up to a crowded security line without any ticket or credentials and kill a whole bunch of infidels. This is what is known as creating choke points and canalizing movements, or just restriction of friendly movement, which is very bad, tactically. It also increases the freedom of movement of the terrorists by increasing the targets of opportunity for them, which, given the spontaneous and decentralized nature of the threat, is also very bad.
The increased scrutiny creates a false impression of safety and diminishes vigilance. The TSA pretends to do it's job while the terrorists don't pretend to do theirs. This is called complacency.

There you have it: misdirection, restriction of friendly movement, increased targets of opportunity and complacency.


Look for a shifty looking Arab taking small steps because he has five pounds of Semtex shoved up his butt !

You know what will hit the fan when he detonates... :D

megimoo
11-23-2010, 03:14 PM
We're much more concerned with the appearance of safety than actually achieving it.

Except that they didn't see every Italian as a mafioso, but they did recognize that there were Italian mobs, and they didn't divert resources to oversight of Swedish businesses or social clubs.

The founders were wary of foreign entanglements at a time when the US was far weaker comparatively than we are now. Jefferson and the other founders were not isolationists, and they would not have hesitated to fight to protect American interests. If the impressment of American sailors led us to fight Britain within a few years of the Revolution, and the Barbary Pirate attacks led us to our first war against Jihadis, imagine what they would have done after 9/11.

Uh, no. You look for specific indicators, which they repeatedly fail to do. For example, single males, traveling on one-way tickets that were paid for in cash, originating in airports with lax security, and who have previously been reported to US authorities or are on no-fly or terror watch lists, would be a good place to start. Noonwitch mentioned the underwear bomber, who met every criteria that I described, but who was still able to get on a plane. The reason that this latest set of intrusive search procedures is so infuriating is that it is based on the flawed assumption that an octagenarian nun is as likely to be a terrorist as a Muslim male, that anybody and everybody is an equal threat, and that we must all therefore submit to ridiculous security measures that will ultimately decrease security.

Why will these new measures decrease security? Simple:
A TSA agent who is patting down a screaming toddler is too busy to observe the crowd that is lined up, and will miss behavioral cues that indicate terrorists. That is what is known as misdirection. Focusing resources away from the threat means that the threat has greater freedom to act.
The longer lines create a target rich environment for terrorists. Instead of detonating on the plane and racking up a body count, a terrorist can walk up to a crowded security line without any ticket or credentials and kill a whole bunch of infidels. This is what is known as creating choke points and canalizing movements, or just restriction of friendly movement, which is very bad, tactically. It also increases the freedom of movement of the terrorists by increasing the targets of opportunity for them, which, given the spontaneous and decentralized nature of the threat, is also very bad.
The increased scrutiny creates a false impression of safety and diminishes vigilance. The TSA pretends to do it's job while the terrorists don't pretend to do theirs. This is called complacency.

There you have it: misdirection, restriction of friendly movement, increased targets of opportunity and complacency.



You know what will hit the fan when he detonates... :D
With TSA doing full body searches and ignoring the crowds while the airports are backing up,an Arab terrorists don't even have to board an aircraft .

Just a few of Islams holy warriors with bomb vests lined with ball bearings .Stash a few wheel on bags with four way plastic claymore mines at the baggage chute and clear the decks of any living passengers.

Odysseus
11-23-2010, 04:09 PM
With TSA doing full body searches and ignoring the crowds while the airports are backing up,an Arab terrorists don't even have to board an aircraft .

Just a few of Islams holy warriors with bomb vests lined with ball bearings .Stash a few wheel on bags with four way plastic claymore mines at the baggage chute and clear the decks of any living passengers.

Exactly. It creates additional areas of vulnerability. Which is why airport security should start at the entrance to the airport and continue at the curb. Instead of scanning people as they go through the security gates, the backscatter should be at the entry point and do whole vehicles (the way that we do in Iraq), with additional ECP procedures in place for those who are concerned about radiation (a vehicle walk-around, bomb-sniffing dogs and pat downs, but only for those who fail the dog check). Curbside luggage check-in should be mandatory where possible (not a great idea during winter in the northeast, or summer in the south, but otherwise doable). Security should be scanning the lines, looking for behaviors that indicate terrorists or other concerns (customs agents do this for smugglers) and the final checks will be far less intrusive, and x-rays of checked baggage can be far less restrictive if everyone has passed through a security checkpoint that includes chemical tests for explosives.

Also, CAIR needs to be told, in no uncertain terms, that nobody is exempt from these procedures except for pilots (let's face it, if a pilot wanted to down a jet, he'd just crash it), US military personnel travelling in uniform and police.

And, I'd provide stun guns to the flight crews, as well as military and police personnel who are flying on orders, with the understanding that they have the authority to protect passengers from threats on the aircraft.

That's how you run security.

Molon Labe
11-23-2010, 04:22 PM
The founders were wary of foreign entanglements at a time when the US was far weaker comparatively than we are now. Jefferson and the other founders were not isolationists, and they would not have hesitated to fight to protect American interests. If the impressment of American sailors led us to fight Britain within a few years of the Revolution, and the Barbary Pirate attacks led us to our first war against Jihadis, imagine what they would have done after 9/11.

Actually, the founders were wary of it because it compromised our sovereignty in that it gave too much influence of foreign nations and central busy body collective organizations over the goings on of our domestic and foreign policy and made us less secure because things get too complicated when you make security guarantees and such.

There's a big gulf between non interventionism and isolationism. But for those who wish to continue with U.S foreign entanglements must throw up the isolationist label to marginalize the gulf, deny it completely as if someone is xenophobic. No nation has ever been isolationist. Even Jefferson's "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations - entangling alliances with none" isn't isolationist. Far from it actually. Suggesting that things be reigned in is far from isolationism, but we can pretend that things like 9-11 made it more "complicated" than it really is.

I can't say for sure how the founders would have reacted to 9-11 but I can base off their writings, beliefs and history that they probably wouldn't have called for and implemented regime change in two sovereign nations. Nor sent brave soldiers into it with little to no clear war aims. They would have fought Al Qaeda much like they did the Barbary pirates.

Odysseus
11-23-2010, 06:13 PM
Actually, the founders were wary of it because it compromised our sovereignty in that it gave too much influence of foreign nations and central busy body collective organizations over the goings on of our domestic and foreign policy and made us less secure because things get too complicated when you make security guarantees and such.

Then why did Jefferson try to get Britain and France to join in the effort against the Barbary Pirates by setting up a collective security arrangement?


There's a big gulf between non interventionism and isolationism. But for those who wish to continue with U.S foreign entanglements must throw up the isolationist label to marginalize the gulf, deny it completely as if someone is xenophobic. No nation has ever been isolationist. Even Jefferson's "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations - entangling alliances with none" isn't isolationist. Far from it actually. Suggesting that things be reigned in is far from isolationism, but we can pretend that things like 9-11 made it more "complicated" than it really is.
I'm not trying to marginalize you. We simply disagree. The founders were perfectly willing to enter alliances when necessary, and happily entered into treaties with other powers, but they would have been apalled at the UN and the League of Nations. NATO would have been a legitimate conflict for them, as it was a permanent overseas diplomatic/military structure, but was also based on the existence of a genuine threat, and I believe that they would have recognized it, even if they may have no longer seen the need to maintain those bases after the Cold War ended (something that would have been hotly debated, as I can see Hamilton and Monroe supporting it until they were sure that the threat was gone).


I can't say for sure how the founders would have reacted to 9-11 but I can base off their writings, beliefs and history that they probably wouldn't have called for and implemented regime change in two sovereign nations. Nor sent brave soldiers into it with little to no clear war aims. They would have fought Al Qaeda much like they did the Barbary pirates.

Their actions are also a good indication, as you pointed out with the Barbary Pirate war, but remember that they were also classicists, and their knowledge of Greece and Rome would have also colored their thinking. I can see Washington quoting Cato in the aftermath of an atrocity on the scale of 9/11 and turning his rage on Kabul. The other thing is that the period of the founding was a period of relatively stable governments. The monarchies of Europe had been in place for centuries (Germany and Italy were still collections of principalities) and they would have been loathe to interfere in the internal politics of a sovereign state, but would have had no illusions as to how to deal with lawless regions (many of the founders were frontiersmen, after all). I think that we can agree that Afghanistan would have been invaded, and that the PC nonsense would have been far less intrusive and interfering. As for Iraq, it's hard to say. I think that some of the founders would have gone for it if they perceived Saddam as a threat, as Bush did. I don't think that they would have spent the time, money or blood on nation building, but would have been content with a massive punitive raid that would have eliminated the threat of Iraq as a terror enabler and WMD supplier.

Madisonian
11-23-2010, 08:12 PM
Treaties and alliances are one thing but there is nothing to indicate they would have approved of permanent US military installations inside a foreign sovereign nation.

I also doubt they would have approved of the Iraq and Afghanistan operations without a formal declaration of War as provided for in the Constitution.

Neither Jefferson nor Madison sought to place standing armies in the Barbary States after their respective wars of their own against the Muslims. It was get in, get the job done and get out.

Yet we still have bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, etc in the Middle East cesspool, all over Japan, Germany, Italy, and on and on.

This kind of world presence makes it difficult, if not impossible, to claim it is all in the name of national defense rather than Team America, World Police.
Very few of these countries that we maintain troops in are any kind of a domestic invasion threat, let alone a serious one. We may be protecting US based multinational corporate interests, but this does not rise to a constitutional case for military deployments.

Molon Labe
11-23-2010, 08:29 PM
Treaties and alliances are one thing but there is nothing to indicate they would have approved of permanent US military installations inside a foreign sovereign nation.

I also doubt they would have approved of the Iraq and Afghanistan operations without a formal declaration of War as provided for in the Constitution.

Neither Jefferson nor Madison sought to place standing armies in the Barbary States after their respective wars of their own against the Muslims. It was get in, get the job done and get out.

Yet we still have bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, etc in the Middle East cesspool, all over Japan, Germany, Italy, and on and on.

This kind of world presence makes it difficult, if not impossible, to claim it is all in the name of national defense rather than Team America, World Police.
Very few of these countries that we maintain troops in are any kind of a domestic invasion threat, let alone a serious one. We may be protecting US based multinational corporate interests, but this does not rise to a constitutional case for military deployments.

And that's why I loathe men like Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and nearly every POTUS since that has gone further down that once forbidden road. We now take for granted Collective security agreements as a good idea. All those bases are a result of getting too involved in nearly every "allies" security arrangement. Strong defense is one thing. But overkill against podunk M.E. twerps is another. Get in get the job done and get out isn't what the politicians practice today. If they would lay out clear objectives as to what they want the military to do, then we would do it and be done. Gulf war I was the last war we fought were we knew the objectives, and nailed it. Say what people want about whether it was right or not, but the goals were defined.