There is some really confused stuff there WEBF.
Firstly, arguing that carriers are needed because the Danes and Norwegians have (apparently) dropped more bombs doesn't make sense... Because they don't have carriers either.
Secondly, the quote from 'Rum Ration' is, at best, scrambled thinking. The poster suggests that Apache is doing the same job as Harrier or Tornado, and thus intimates we should have retained Harrier. First problem there is - if they were doing the same job - then why do we need Harrier if we have Apache. Second problem is... they are not doing the same job, and we have Tornado.
In fact, the deployment proves that an LPH is an essential asset if we want to deploy rotary assets in this way, as helicopters are slow and range-limited. Fast jets are not, and the GR4s (much to the regret of certain individuals) appear to be doing a very good job. As do all the other RN, army and RAF assets deployed...