93% Of All US Navy Ships Said At Sea - Why?

Anonymous
93% Of All US Navy Ships Said At Sea - Why?
Mon Jun 14, 2004 19:56
152.163.253.98


93% Of All US Navy Ships Said At Sea - Why?
A Little Puzzle In Logic
Half Past Human.com
6-14-4
http://www.rense.com/general53/SHSHI.HTM

If the navies of the world were putting to sea en masse (10 carrier groups out from USofA alone) - 93 per cent of ALL USofA naval ships at sea - offical stats,  

and if the Federal Reserve Bank was force feeding liquidity into the system unexpectedly at rates that exceeded the post-911 period,  

then a few reasonably sound deductions might be made of this....

but first, our assumptions:

1) navies put to sea when they expect severe weather;

2) experience proves its very expensive to keep your navies at sea for any length of time, and the poorer the country, the shorter is this time;

3) navies do *not* put to sea en masse for war, especially nuclear war (think about it, easy to find, and a few large nukes un voila, no collateral damage other than fishes, and no more navy);

4) the Fed forcing money into the system has a short term, limited effect, likely on the order of less than 2 months cycle time (money velocity through the system);

so our deductions might be as follows:

a) since it is reportedly mulitple countries of the world having their navies out to sea, then whatever the reason is not likely political;

b) since it is reportedly navies from all around the planet putting to sea, the expectation could easily be that 'they' suspect something global to occur that would adversely affect ships in port...anywhere on earth? This argues for both global impact, and climactic/environmental as no purely political/social event would affect all navies planet wide;  

c) since navies can only mill-about so long on the water, especially en masse, the 'what ever' is a short-term expectation;

d) since the effects of the Fed liquidity explosion are going to go through the monetary system like heroin through an addict, that is, one short term 'rush' and then withdrawal leading to very shakey behavior, the 'whatever' that the Fed is preparing for is a short-term expectation.

Now, of course the definition of short-term could vary, but it would seem safe to assume that the Navy of the USofA won't be milling about for months. So, perhaps a good definition would be that of a month? So 30 days? And some sort of global navy affecting 'thingey' may or may not occur. Sort of sounds like Aussie Bloke stuff, but, today, a single large earthquake in Antarctica rattled the world, setting off a series of large earthquakes along many parts of the 'ring of fire' around the Pacific Rim. So, if the navies of the world were expecting something to occur, *maybe*, and thought to be better safe than sorry, they might put about for a while.

So, since we have two, verified, observable occurances, i.e. navies out to sea, and Fed pumping money like never before in history, we have a logic puzzle. Neither of the observable events makes sense within the context of today's world, unless there is something wicked this way coming.....or thought to be by those we pay to know.

Refutations invited, please.

http://www.halfpasthuman.com /> http://www.halfpasthuman.com   



Main Page -  06/14/04

Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]

APFN MESSAGEBOARD ARCHIVES

messageboard.gif (4314 bytes)