pull down to refresh
No shit it’s extraordinary. You’ve now repeated that several times as if repetition turns it into an argument.
Nobody disputed that 250 days at sea sucks. What you still haven’t shown is that it was unnecessary, avoidable, or the result of failed leadership. “Sailors are suffering” does not magically prove “therefore the mission was unjustified.” That’s an emotional leap, not an argument.
I’ve actually lived through deployments and unexpected extensions. You’re sitting on the sidelines using other servicemembers’ hardship as ammunition for your politics.
So either show how Lincoln could have been relieved without compromising the mission, or admit you don’t know. Repeating “250 days” a fourth time won’t fill that hole.
April: sailors report deteriorating conditions. Reports are dismissed.
July: sailor says, essentially, we need help after a record stretch at sea.
August: families are reporting attempted overboard suicides and confronting senior Navy leadership.
So dense! You keep repeating that the deployment was brutal. I F****** AGREE.
Now answer the question you keep dodging, could Lincoln have been relieved earlier without compromising the mission? If yes, show me the evidence. If you don't know, say you don't know.
A miserable deployment can be necessary. I've lived that reality. You keep acting like proving sailors suffered automatically proves someone made the wrong operational decision. It doesn't.
You're documenting hardship and pretending you've proven causation. You haven't.
, could Lincoln have been relieved earlier without compromising the mission?
Put a pen it.
We don’t know. Neither Congress nor the public has yet been given the operational explanation. What seems odd is the ship configuration: by late April, Lincoln, Ford and Bush were all in the region. Ford was sent home, Bush stayed, and Lincoln,
already due home around May, kept getting extended.
We don't know. THANK YOU. That's literally been my point this entire time.
You don't know whether Lincoln could have been relieved without compromising the mission. I don't know either. Neither of us has the operational picture, readiness data, maintenance status, tasking, or commander's reasoning necessary to make that judgment.
The difference is I'm not pretending that I do.
You started with sailors' suffering and a record deployment and used it to imply leadership failure. Now, several replies later, we've finally arrived at "we don't know."
That's where the analysis should have started.
And for the love of God, it's still "put a PIN in it."
Sorry, I assume everyone can see the failed leadership of this administration, and sometimes it clouds my ability to realize that some people can't see it or I guess, see it differently.
But that said, we got two pens out there, before we get to pin the truth!!
🤣
I use 250 days because they have been at sea for that long (roughly 6–8× normal) without touching land, which is extraordinary and significant and a reflection of what conditions aboard must be, and some of them are trying to jump overboard. So yeah, that’s out of the ordinary.