Replies

38

Nov 2 2017

Four carriers & escorts in the pacific?

Why is that relevant?

To prevent other state actors from attempting to harm us during this transition? Russia / China?

Or conversely all for NK? Or all three.

Think logically about the timing of everything happening.

========================================================

This was one of the early Q-drops which made it obvious (unlike you I would not say "proves" because of course there is usually room for dispute) that "Q" is neither highly knowledgeable about military/strategic matters nor competent to instruct the nascent Q-cult.

There were 5, not 4, US CVNs at sea in the Pacific in Nov. 2017, but only 3 of them (not 4) were involved in the brief exercises in the Sea of Japan. 2 others were doing relatively brief readiness and training exercises off the west coast of the USA, many thousands of miles from Asia. 3 met up briefly (a few days) for exercises in the Sea of Japan. Yes, this was obviously a kind of show of force to NK, China, and Russia, as well as supportive for our allies. But NO, it was not about some ongoing, long-term shield to "To prevent other state actors from attempting to harm us during this transition? Russia / China?" BECAUSE we were not going to be keeping all these carrier groups in that area for long. Most of the time there is ONE carrier group in the western Pacific, and that is what we reverted to very soon. So yes, show of force for deterrence, that was obvious in the news reports and no one needed "Q" to say that. BUT NO, it was not designed at all to "prevent other state actors from attempting to harm us during this transition" because the transition is much more long-term and still ongoing. The deployment of 3 (not 4) carrier groups together was very brief, only a matter of days (not months or years). Deterrence? Yes. We showed the bad guys what we might do if we needed to. But the Q-drop tries to make it sound like we could keep 3 (not 4) carrier groups on station in the western Pacific all the time, and that did not and would not happen absent the most extreme emergency. Q knows nothing about how US carrier battle groups are deployed, hence he is not senior "military intelligence" or some high-ranking DOD official(s), never mind someone close to POTUS Trump. Q is a LARPer.

We are still in the "transition" period to whatever may happen wrt NK, but no, we are not keeping 3 (not 4) carrier groups on station in the Sea of Japan. Q is just grasping at items in the news and trying to pretend to be expert, spewing his often shaky grasp of he's not quite sure what.

So your proof that you aren’t a troll is the opinion of a different troll on a different board. LOL ok

That was fascinating—thanks for the breakdown. I once incited a lynch mob by merely pointing out that Q doesn’t talk about ‘our savior,’ the way Christians do. Q is certainly not who it’s claimed to be.