(05-27-2021, 04:59 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(05-27-2021, 04:41 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: No dumb [BLEEP], it's because you continued to insist that any ship which carries aircraft is as strategically capable as another. You led your argument with ignorance and bolstered it with bilge.

That's not what I said but OK.
I said we have more than enough ships that carry airplanes.
And more than enough that carry helicopters.
More than enough of both.  Of all.
Do you dispute that? Do you think we need more?
Google counted the helicopter carriers as aircraft carriers.  I should have been more careful before I copied something off of Google, but they're the ones who lumped the two together, not me.
If you were a non-toxic conversation partner, you would say, "OK, dumb mistake, but I think the number of ships we have is _______.". Excessive? Just right? Not enough? Any of those answers would have been on topic and respectful.
But you are toxic because you look for any excuse to make the conversation about the poster instead.

So in other words, your ignorance believed Google regarding aircraft carriers.

We don't have enough actually.  The one carrier that we have in the South China Sea theater is being deployed to the middle east.  That leaves no carrier there due to operational rotation.  That's really not a good thing considering today's world military presence.

The carrier that it's relieving needs to get back home for necessary repairs and maintenance.

Of course, liberal democrat "google warriors" like you will never understand the significance or need for ship movements, especially since you have never served.

---