Okay, but can you see how that’s not actually what you said?

You just called it stupid.

He said, and I quote:

Yeah, it was made at a time when the concept of a war was a months long preparation of deploying troops and moving assets into place

Note the plural in "months".

Then he added:

You might want to look at the preparations for the invasion of Iraq if you want to know what an actual preparation for a war looks like.

If you don't know, the prep for the 2003 invasion of Iraq took 18 months.

Even the extremely rushed (due to the fact that Saddam was actively killing Kuwait) Desert Storm took almost 6 months to prepare.

Note that Iraq is 1/3rd the size of Iran.

But with hindsight, do you think that carrier deployment unrelated?

It's not that it's unrelated. It's barely consequential considering the scale of the operation. And by "operation" I mean "the actual preparation that would normally take place if someone competent was responsible for the planning of the attack".

The US has assets (including carriers) in the region practically non-stop. One more or less doesn't really change much in the context of them burning through ammo supplies, or the fact that @UnspecificGravity@piefed.social was 100% right in saying that this was completely rushed.

Does that article support the conclusion that Trumps attack on Iran was adequately planned?