TheRegt

If your not staying strapped these days, your asking for problems. 1. Handgun, extra mag, small trauma kit are bare minimum. 2. Rifle, chest rig, 120 rifle rounds, expanded trauma kit should be standard. 3. Strongly recommend plates with expanded tool sets. Especially if you have kids. 1 gets you off the x. 2 is for getting after it on the x. 3 is for extended stays on the x.

On fire with… what, precisely? The guy’s billed as some towering intellectual, yet he has zero clue about foreign policy. For all the times he smugly demands ‘What is a woman?,’ you’d expect him to actually not think/talk/process like one—rambling, circular, emotionally loaded, the works.

Walsh has been on fire

@hodgetwins Hodgetwins Foreign Policy: Do nothing about anything, then.... somehow... do more nothing after anything happens? Channeling your inner Obama 'Hope' pitch I see. Must be a black thing. Genius-level statesmanship right there. And "its the jooooos"

Why is everyone commenting “what war”? Tell that to the families of the fallen soldiers so far. Tell that to the soldiers who are fearing for their lives because they’re in harm’s way. Whether you label it a war or a military operation, it’s all the same—American soldiers are still dying! Why are those on the right downplaying what our military is going through? I pray for our soldiers and their families.

You’re not connecting your own ideas. 1.Yes—most military actions share surface patterns. 2.No—surface patterns don’t justify your conclusion that a sustained ground war is inevitable. Here are the facts right now: 3.There is no ground war. 4.Iran’s centralized command has been degraded. 5.The service members killed were not part of a U.S. ground invasion force. So prove your claim. What specific evidence shows we’re headed to “Iraq 2.0”—as in sustained ground occupation and nation-building—rather than limited strikes + deterrence + regional posture? You can’t just point to “people died” and call that proof. Losses are tragic, but they are not a syllogism (you should learn this word—it would fix your entire approach) If your model can’t distinguish between similar-looking inputs and different strategic outcomes, then it isn’t analysis—it’s doom-posting. So I’ll ask directly: What outcome would make you admit you were wrong?

Lack substance??? because you deflect like you're smart with these long worded phrases that mean jack sh!t? I'm lost for you lol how obvious of patterns of every single war in the middle east but keep up your genius brain of these long worded slop that will continue in days of more lives lost sadly. But no boots on ground right.... no deaths on ground right. A pure genius 👏

I served two combat tours in Iraq. I’ve seen what happens when a lying, chicken-hawk President beats the war drums. I ran for Congress and serve on the Armed Services Committee because I refuse to let the country I love repeat those mistakes. It’s why we passed the War Powers Act (after Vietnam) in the first place.  So that before the President sends our troops into harm’s way, he has to make his case TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. Trump hasn’t done that. He hasn’t explained his goals.  He hasn't told you what it will cost – both in our tax dollars and (God forbid) our kids coming home in flag-draped coffins.   That’s why I cosponsored Congressman Khanna and Congressman Massie’s War Powers Resolution. And why I’m calling for a vote IMMEDIATELY.  To force an honest conversation as a country about what comes next. To stop yet another forever war. We cannot repeat our approach from 2001 and 2002.  The answer cannot be “we’ll figure it out as we go.” I lost too many friends because of that logic. As I said after the attack on Iran’s nuclear sites last June: Air strikes may start a war. They rarely end it.

You do understand that military action happens regularly, right? Foreign actors are constantly attempting to harm U.S. service members and interests. That’s not new. That’s the environment. Risk—and yes, sometimes death—is inherent to military service. That reality doesn’t automatically transform every engagement into “Iraq 2.0.” Your logic seems to be: “Someone died, therefore this equals the Global War on Terror.” Very dull. Where your argument collapses is in treating ALL military action as synonymous with the GWOT. If every use of force equals endless occupation, then your framework leaves no room for deterrence, targeted strikes, or consequence. This is the point where you’re completely discredited. Which effectively means: hostile actors face no response—up to and including advancing nuclear capabilities while openly threatening destruction. Thats just absolutely fucking stupid. And you cannot address this. The only thing Im surprised you haven’t argued yet—and I’ll give you credit for: “it’s the joos”

Right one of those dudes that can't admit the obvious fact of pattern recognition. You lack any substance at all, just deflect from the obvious questions and answer I gave to similarities. Then we wake up to combat deaths, but keep on thinking you got it figured out bud 👍policy 😆 🤣

@NowThinkFree @RepPatRyanNY Where’s the ground war dude? Where is it? Because I don’t see it. This is literally your claim. And it doesn’t exist.

@144sent @RepPatRyanNY Dude you deflect from everything that someone states. No similarities, bahahaha. Too funny. No ground war... right. Right.

Leveraging “lives lost” as rhetorical leverage doesn’t prove your case. It signals you’re appealing to emotion because you lack substance. Your argument rests entirely on speculation. That speculation rests entirely on predictions. And those predictions appear to be borrowed—not built. You haven’t presented evidence. You’ve presented inevitability as if it’s fact. You also haven’t demonstrated any real understanding of Iran’s history with the U.S., its proxy structure, or its nuclear posture. Instead, you selectively elevate facts when they support your narrative and ignore them when they don’t. It’s confirmation bias. If you’re not here to test your assumptions, you’re not debating—you’re broadcasting.

@144sent @RepPatRyanNY Okay bud, sound like a paper pusher to me bur best of luck to ya. theguardian.com/us-news/2026/m…

@MattWalshBlog Because no one can do two things at once -Matt Walsh.

The policy I'd prefer is to deport all illegal immigrants, denaturalize and deport all anti-American legal immigrants, and try to stay out of regime change wars in the Middle East. What's wrong with that plan? Can you explain?

@hodgetwins Really interesting to watch from the outside. Personally never gave a fuck about you turds. But I could tell from the jump you guys had no balls or brains. Just a couple of chuckleheads with a microphone.

Don’t care if we lose all our followers over this war we won’t stay quiet about Americans getting sent to die for Israel

There’s a difference between strategic caution and paralysis by abstraction. This word salad doesn’t address the actual threat Iran poses or the exhaustive measures already taken to contain it. Every President has tried something—of which I’m sure you bitched also. You’re theorizing in circles while ignoring reality. And you’re acting like a female.

What exactly is the end game? "The Iranian people rise up and take control of their government"? Okay what does that mean exactly? Which people? How are they taking control? What happens after they do take control? Are we sure the new people, whoever they are, will be better than the old people? How are we going to make sure of that? How are we going to make sure of it while also not putting boots on the ground? This has not been explained. It needs to be.

Foreign policy by internet poll. Impressive. Are these your conclusions—or just whatever’s trending in your feed? You’re not weighing risk. You’re declaring inevitability. You’ve absorbed a prediction so completely you’re speaking as if it’s already fact. Do you not see your arguments issue? It’s not actually true. Wild.

@144sent @RepPatRyanNY

@NowThinkFree @RepPatRyanNY This means nothing. I’m confused as to what you think this proves?

@144sent @RepPatRyanNY

Let me try this again—because you keep repeating the same point like it’s proof. The issue isn’t pattern recognition. It’s your failure to differentiate between superficially similar events with materially different variables. Patterns alone prove nothing. Every conflict has speeches, strikes, rhetoric, and fallout. That doesn’t make them strategically identical. If your framework is “I’ve seen something like this before,” but you refuse to weigh scale, posture, objectives, constraints, and end state—you’re not analyzing. You’re pattern matching without context. Correlation without differentiation isn’t insight. It’s oversimplification. And you’re treating your prediction like a fact. It isn’t. I’d also wager you ran this exact same script when prior strikes happened—and when escalation didn’t materialize, there was no correction. Just a quiet pivot to the next alarm. So here’s the real test: If no broader war unfolds—do you acknowledge you were wrong and adjust your model? Or do you keep recycling the same inevitability narrative regardless of outcome?

@144sent @RepPatRyanNY I just gave you multiple examples in texts to come to a resolution. I can show more if you want earlier haha. You can't understand patterns then that's on you. Lol it's hilarious but agree to disagree 🤣.

2012/13 tweets are not a 2026 threat assessment. Geopolitics isn’t frozen in time. You’re acting like foreign policy is a personality test instead of a response to evolving conditions. If the best rebuttal you have is a decade-old screenshot, you don’t have a strategic argument—you have a gotcha. Is this really the basis of your argument?

@144sent @RepPatRyanNY

You’re reframing this as “the same failed playbook” and calling it reality. But you’re still projecting inevitability. Decades of Middle East conflict don’t automatically make every strike part of a doomed cycle. That’s not evidence. That’s historical fatalism. 30–40k troops in region ≠ ground invasion. That’s force posture. It has been standard for years. Iran is not Iraq 2003. Iran has active nuclear infrastructure. Iran funds and arms proxies across multiple theaters. Iran has directly retaliated before. Acting as if doing nothing reduces risk is just as speculative as claiming escalation is guaranteed. Here’s where your projection fails most: Under your foreign policy logic, we allow a known and hostile actor to advance unchecked because intervention might be messy. That’s not strategy. That’s avoidance. Foreign policy is not isolationism. It never has been. It’s about balancing deterrence, stability, and risk in the interest of the broader free world. There are regimes that destabilize regions, fund violence, and threaten allies. Pretending restraint alone neutralizes that threat is naïve. Questioning policy is healthy. Declaring every use of force proof of endless war isn’t realism—it’s reflex. History doesn’t repeat because force is used. It repeats when deterrence collapses.

it's a repeated playbook of hype, strikes, and fallout that costs lives without fixing anything. Digging deeper, this take is utterly trash because it skips the hypocrisy of the very people pushing this action, who flipped from warning against wars to starting them. It's not causation vs. correlation; it's cold reality repeating itself, putting Americans at risk for no gain. Why? Same crew that railed against "forever wars" and warned Obama/Biden would drag us into Iran conflict for politics (Trump's old tweets, Vance saying "no chance" of drawn-out Middle East war just days before Feb 28, 2026 strikes, Tulsi testifying March 2025 that Iran wasn't building nukes and Khamenei hadn't restarted the program) flipped hard. June 2025 "Midnight Hammer" hit Fordow, Natanz, Isfahan. Trump called it "obliterated." Talks followed, but Feb 28, 2026 massive U.S./Israel strikes targeted regime leaders (including Khamenei killed per reports), nukes, missiles, navy, regime change push. Not new intel; just excuses recycled. Strikes set back the program months to maybe 2 years max (Pentagon/IAEA assessments post-2025); Iran kept highly enriched uranium stockpile (hundreds of kg at 60%), rebuilt covertly, retaliated on U.S. bases in Qatar/Bahrain/Iraq. No ground invasion? 30–40k U.S. troops already in-region, bases hit, casualties inevitable as admitted. Trust the plan 😆 🤣 you can trust the policy robotic take is hilarious. Trillions blown since 9/11 on Middle East fights, little real security gained. Why gamble more American lives (and civilians there) on foreign entanglements that don't help us? Prioritize worthy causes like protecting persecuted Christians, not endless proxy cycles that unify Iran's regime against us and activate militias. Blowback hits home: post-2025 strikes spiked Iranian proxy threats, sleeper cells, Hezbollah, cyber attacks, lone wolves. DHS/FBI alerts surged. More ops = more fuel for plots here. This isn't strategic wisdom.....it's ignoring the clear pattern to cheer unchecked escalation. Boots in theater mean danger right now; admitting casualties proves the cost. Real "Honor" means questioning these flips and endless risks, not brushing off caution. Same play, same results.... more anger, danger(Americans in coffins here and abroad), no win. Wake up, this is reality not what ifs, this isn't a causation correlation model lol this is evidence of decades of the same pattern and same action. We've had plenty skirmishes in the Sandbox with no boots on the ground and it's really just different here derp... causation and what not. I'll stop but I'm lost on your take. God bless nonetheless

You listed 10 aesthetic similarities and called it analysis—while insinuating proof. That’s not how this works. You could do this with any military action in history. Draw parallels between Iraq and WWII—you’ll find 10. That doesn’t make them the same war. Correlation ≠ causation. No invasion. Different threat profile. Different facts on the ground. You’re not proving “Iraq 2.0”—you’re demonstrating you can’t distinguish between surface pattern recognition and strategic reality. That’s not foresight. That’s intellectual laziness. You’re relying entirely on correlation while ignoring key differences: • No ground invasion • Iran has an active, documented nuclear program (Iraq didn’t) • Air-only engagement so far • Ongoing internal unrest inside Iran • Documented proxy warfare and regional attacks • Recent escalations directly attributable to Iran Surface parallels are easy. Context, scale, and intent are what matter. That’s where reality lives—not in emotional “this looks similar, therefore it is” arguments. If your entire case is “this feels familiar,” that’s not analysis—that’s narrative building. Confident predictions based on vibes aren’t strategy—they’re storytelling.

I will definitely give you about 10 examples, but you literally word-slopped again brother? 😆 🤣 You're not giving any examples how it doesn't. Which is pretty funny and what a politician would say. "Oh but it resembles nothing and he dishonored and I served so I know", but what do you know? What is it that it doesn't resemble? What's he lying about? Here's a few big dog. 1. Preemptive WMD/nuclear threat claims 2. “Mission accomplished” / “totally obliterated” lie. 3. Strikes without clear congressional approval 4. Calls for regime change / internal uprising 5. Heavy reliance on air & bunker-buster strikes 6. “Limited” action turning into wider bombing 7. Imminent danger / ticking-clock narrative 8. Mostly U.S. + one main ally (not broad coalition in the end) 9. Disputed / politicized intelligence 10. Bombs framed as bringing “freedom” to the people I'll keep going, once you provide 10 of how it doesn't resemble. Also, respect your service regardless and love the debate. God bless

What is “word slop”? Low-effort, low-quality text—often AI-generated filler that lacks substance or originality. That’s the opposite of what I wrote—clear, evidence-based, and from real experience. He’s lying. That’s my point. He’s pushing an emotional appeal by equating this situation to Iraq/Afghanistan with zero evidence to support it. I’ve used em dashes long before AI existed, big dog. As a former special operator and law school graduate, I speak from authority and experience—not emotion. You are misinformed (knowingly or not). Provide any evidence this resembles the GWOT in scope, objectives, or reality. I’ll wait.

Wait, so what's the breach big dog? What's been said that loses integrity? I can assure you most I know who served in Afghanistan, aren't happy about this at all. Just curious with a level head, what has been dishonored? As everyone I hang with and most military 80%+ voted Trump 3x, so what's been said that is wrong? Juat curious

Equating the current situation in any way to the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan is an intentional emotional appeal rather than a factual comparison. There is no evidence—none—that this resembles the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) in scope, objectives, or likely duration. Those conflicts involved nation-building, prolonged insurgencies, and regime change with massive troop commitments over decades. As an elected representative and veteran, leveraging personal service experience to frame this as a repeat risks misleading the public and politicizing military history in a way that’s highly irresponsible. It’s disappointing to see such tactics used, especially when they invoke ‘veteran experience’ to amplify an emotional rather than evidence-based argument. He’s lying for political points. That’s disgusting lacking in character in morals. He in no way represents veterans opinions or truth.

To the politicians who are also veterans: Exploiting your military service to peddle lies about current events isn’t just politics—it’s a serious breach of the integrity and honor we veterans live by. We regular vets (the non-political ones) are watching. We see right through it. And that kind of dishonor always carries a cost.