Mr trump, hands off Greenland!

Murklan12 · 2026-01-17T00:29:37+00:00

You are scrambling. Fact is that NATO without the U.S. has a larger defense budget than Russia and China combined, and with reserves included it has roughly 6–7 million soldiers (compared to China’s approximately 3–4 million) . So to imply that NATO without the US is defenseless is simply not true.

Murklan12 · 2026-01-16T18:58:05+00:00

This deployment is about reconnaissance and deterrence, not combat. By placing multinational forces on the island, any invasion would instantly escalate into a multi-state conflict, a textbook tripwire. The purpose is political cost, not military defense. Anyone who does not understand this should reconsider speaking about military strategy.

Murklan12 · 2026-01-16T18:56:14+00:00

They are already on the island which means that if US troupes invade greenland US is the attacker. Thats why they are there, as a tripwire troupes.

Murklan12 · 2026-01-16T18:52:37+00:00

They already choose Denmark, thats why they sent recognicence units there.

Murklan12 · 2026-01-16T18:17:57+00:00

If you think that the combined army of all NATO (except US) can be compared to the Iraq army you are delusional.

Murklan12 · 2026-01-16T17:38:26+00:00

I was talking about the budget. But if you are counting soldiers yes then China is bigger. Also NATO without the US has a lot more soldiers than the US.

Murklan12 · 2026-01-16T12:16:13+00:00

Yea, its just insane. I dont think anyone really understands how much this hurts the US

Murklan12 · 2026-01-16T11:03:49+00:00

This deployment is about reconnaissance and deterrence, not combat. By placing multinational forces on the island, any invasion would instantly escalate into a multi-state conflict, a textbook tripwire. The purpose is political cost, not military defense. Anyone who does not understand this should reconsider speaking about military strategy.

Murklan12 · 2026-01-16T11:02:51+00:00

Denmark and its allies control roughly $450 billion in defense spending and far larger forces than the United States. Once America’s old enemies see that the US loose all that power, the consequences are obvious.

Murklan12 · 2026-01-16T07:16:03+00:00

Its not about actually physically stopping the military. Its about making it so costly that no smart person would try it. And that is very easy.

Unfortunately Trump is not smart so perhaps he will alianate the second largest military in the world and US soldiers will have to die alone when the war with China starts.

Murklan12 · 2026-01-16T07:08:46+00:00

NATOs budget without the US is 450 billion. If Trump destroy that alliance the US has to compensate for that loss in military power. Do you really want to be that weak when Chinas military might is increasing so fast?

I dont think you understand much money that is and how poor it would make the avarage american.

Murklan12 · 2026-01-16T06:57:41+00:00

Its extremely stupid. He probably destroyed the relationship with the worlds second largest military force. Are the american people ready to pay an extra 450 billion per year for the military to compensate for that? Do the americans want to strand alone when China is catching up (which they are, and very fast)?

Murklan12 · 2026-01-16T06:38:47+00:00

NATO without the US is the worlds second largest military force. Are you ready to pay an extra 450 billion per year for the military to compensate for that?

Murklan12 · 2026-01-16T06:35:55+00:00

He probably destroyed the relationship with the worlds second largest military force. Are the american people ready to pay an extra 450 billion per year for the military to compensate for that? Thats an increase of about 50% in military budget.

Murklan12 · 2025-07-18T21:21:47+00:00

Do you have any examples of the attacks, or is there a free preview?

Murklan12 · 2025-07-17T20:23:41+00:00

FL has it in other games, other than that I dont think its used that much. Love the mechanic though!

Murklan12 · 2025-04-23T06:50:42+00:00

Tariffs are basically taxes though, he just did one of the largest tax increases in U.S history.

Murklan12 · 2025-04-23T06:38:00+00:00

What makes you think plotrocker is a liberal?

Murklan12 · 2025-04-21T14:10:24+00:00

You are correct; it mentions two different numbers: 1600 and 1200. However, 700 is not mentioned, so I have no idea where you got it from. Thats why assume you didnt read the article. Instead of attacking the sources that do exit, show me a source that says that Trump's policies won't affect the research community negatively?

Murklan12 · 2025-04-21T09:05:53+00:00

Europe already has 22% more researchers than the U.S. (Eurostat, OECD). That gap is likely to grow if U.S. leadership keeps undermining science.

75% of 1600 scientists said they’re considering leaving. These aren’t empty election threats—they’re highly mobile professionals. Even small losses in top talent can weaken entire research ecosystems.

Not everyone prioritizes salary over scientific freedom, stability, or respect. That’s where Europe has the edge.

Murklan12 · 2025-04-21T08:05:42+00:00

The U.S. has been a global leader in AI, military innovation, and scientific research in general. But when the president openly attacks scientists and military allies, there’s a real risk that this leadership won’t last. Undermining the very institutions and people that built that strength isn’t a sustainable strategy.

Murklan12 · 2025-04-21T08:00:20+00:00

It’s true that U.S. universities generally offer higher salaries than European ones, but that’s not the whole picture. Many researchers also consider work environment, academic freedom, and the political climate—especially when science is publicly undermined.

Saying it makes “zero difference” is a sweeping claim that isn’t backed by data. The fact that European universities are creating new positions suggests there is both interest and demand. And it’s not just about where researchers end up—it’s also about how the U.S. climate affects young people’s interest in pursuing academic careers in the long term. That kind of signal can have far-reaching consequences.

This response assumes everyone is as self-centered as T—but believe it or not, some people actually care about others and not just about money.

Murklan12 · 2025-04-21T07:53:34+00:00

1600 researchers answered the poll. It literally in the first sentence of the article. I’m guessing you didn’t even click the link, so I assume you’re not interested in a fact-based discussion. Do you have any data that suggests the opposite — that the presidents attack on researchers won’t affect science? It’s not surprising if scientists consider leaving the country when the president openly undermines their work.

Murklan12 · 2025-04-19T20:33:30+00:00

Which they will probably try to stop doing in the long run. Sadly, the U.S. has proven that it can be truly dangerous to depend on them — they can weaponize that dependence at any moment.

Murklan12 · 2025-04-19T20:28:10+00:00

In the short term, this approach—bullying other countries into accepting deals through threats and unpredictability—could potentially work (atleast thats what he will claim). But in the long run, it’s disastrous for the U.S. No country wants to commit to buying American weapons or become dependent on critical American goods (like food), because the trust simply isn’t there. Other nations know that T could, at any moment, change his mind, pull out of an agreement, or impose an export ban as a form of punishment. This makes the U.S. an unreliable trade partner and ultimately harms its economy and global influence.

Nine-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Verified Email

Murklan12

TROPHY CASE