So hypothetically, if the Muslims wipe out the European population, it would be the fault of the Europeans as they did not assimilate to Muslim culture.
You can't compare two different and very specific situations.
Colonysts were not directly hostile to the natives culture, their religions etc. In fact as far as I know, natives also had support from many colonysts. I do not say that what happend was the best solutions, but if natives would be assimilated in to the new nations structure on the same rules like new imigrants were, then they could preserve their culture and in fact contribute in to the creation process of the new nation.
The fault in reality falls on both sides, that they pursued a short sighted desires instead of more progresive approach.
Muslims are other thing, they do not accept any minorities in reality, or rarely do and do not treat them equaly, this is mostly because of how fundamentally important is religion for them, that this is not only religion but also it is culture, law, everything.
But you are right, this is our, Europeans fault that we let so many Muslims to come to us, and that due to political correctness we do not keep an eye on them so they will respect and obey our laws.
What I was saying is that nations act, not out of love for other nations, but out of desire to maintain dominance.
Of course, just like in nature, a form of natural selection, however take a notice that mechanism in case of our civilization are more comples and sometimes subtle.
For example, the US has a nuclear sharing agreement w/ several European nations. What do you think, this is out of love for Europe ?
Granted it does provide a certain degree of deterrence to those European nations w/o nukes. But suppose there is a war b/w the US and Russia or the US and PRC, then the latter nations will be forced to take out the nukes in these Europeans nations too, and thereby unnecessarily involving these European nations in the war. A clever strategy imo. The fact is Europe (and its 600 million people) is just a chunk of buffer for the US on the Eastern side, just like Canada on the northern side.
But I agree w/ a military pact w/ the US is favorable to Europe, but the US is more benefited by the pact, than Europe.
USA is the strongest country in this pact, it is natural that they having decisive word, have the biggest benefits, also notice that the contribute to the pact most resources both human and material, IMHO they have a right to decide, especially that many countries in NATO does not provide sufficent contribution, in my opinion some of these nations are just ridiculous with their reductions and cuts only to feed hordes of parasites, mostly not even Europeans but just imigrants from Africa or Middle East.
Also I think this missile shield affects the balance of power from the viewpoint of the Russians, so no wonder they oppose it.
Of course it affects the balance, for several reasons, first conventional arms, NATO have advantage here, mainly because USA's contribution, so nuclear weapons were the only factor on the Russian side to keep the balance, Russians perfectly know, that they can't keep up due to financial problems mostly in terms of BMD systems with USA and it's allies, especially that USA try to build a global or semi global system, and this despite economic problems, so compare what NATO can do with economic problems and what Russians can't do now with their rather stable economical situation because of their natural resources exports.
Now imagine what would happen if European countries, USA and Canada would not have economic problems and their economy would record a significant growth.