And relative to their size they have next to no political influence or candidates and dont go to the polls. You do realize there are often more Muslim politicians in the US congress than there are in many European parliaments right? And regardless, the % of the population of Muslims is still very low, even in Sweden. Their "vocal" aspect comes from the fact that many of the muslims are refugees and they get into the media a lot in mostly negative stories and it is always sensationalist when a "funny looking" with a strange name commits a crime against a white. You have the same problem in the US.. a white kid is the victim of a crime by a black kid and it is all over the news, and if it had been a black kid from a bad area... nothing... relatively speaking.
According to Pew Research, Muslims make up less than one percent (0.8% to be exact) of the American population.
On the other hand, muslims make up a full six percent of the population of Europe. Muslims make up 5% of the population of Germany, 7.5% of the population of France, and 4.6% of the population of the United Kingdom.
Those are the numbers. The difference is quite noticeable when you travel.
They are very quite.. yea because they are afraid of their lives. Same reason the Sikh communities are on red alert constantly. And also many of the "muslims" are in fact African Americans who are in or have been in jail and hence are out of the political discourse.
I think I've shown that the Muslim community is relatively quiet in the United States because it is relatively smaller than in Europe, and more spread out due to the natural geography of the United States.
"We" developed them is a bit of a stretch.. you took scientists and theories from European countries and they made the bomb for you. Had it not been for German/Austrian, Danish and British scientists, then you would never have gotten the nuke.. or the jet, or radar, or minesweeping tanks, tanks that can float and so on and so on.
Again, you are delving in to hypotheticals. The fact is that they did come, and the USA did develop the nuclear bomb first. I'm not discounting the role European immigrants played in the Manhattan Project, however the second Albert Einstein and company defected to the United States, they became Americans. We're a nation of immigrants, after all.
Oh you dont see Iran needing nukes as a deterrent? Iran has been attacked by other nations almost as much as Israel has and is under the very same threat as Israel from even more countries.
Listen I dont like the mullahs, but the Iranian people have been far more peaceful for far longer than Israel has even existed.
As for Israel not admitting nukes.. well when they put a whistleblower in prison for life for exposing their nuclear program, that is kinda like admitting it.
First, Israel has not admitted to having nukes, and while we may speculate that they have them, let's not assume it as a fact. We don't know. And no, putting a whistleblower in prison does not constitute definitive evidence because we don't know the whole story there.
Second, it's not just me that doesn't want Iran to get the bomb. It's your own beloved EU. Even the Russians and the Chinese. There isn't a country in Europe, at least that I'm aware of, that takes the position that Iran should be able to develop that weapon. Not one.
So you're on your own with that opinion. Perhaps you share it with some radical Islamic types, that's about it.
Ask yourself why that is. Why does the whole world agree that Iran shouldn't get the bomb? Because Iran is not a stable country, and we're not talking about handing candy out to children.
So when your president calls you part of the axis of evil, then what is that? Sorry but we can play this game on and on. Plus that was the ex-president (in both cases) and is not relevant on today. And the translation of what he said has always been in doubt. And you talk about trust... I dont trust the Iranian regime, but I also dont trust the Israeli regime... because both have done nothing to earn that trust and in many cases the direct opposite.
It's relevant because the same Imam rules Iran. The President of Iran is not the leader of that country.
Lets see.. attacking unarmed ships in the Med. Its treatment of Palestinians. Its use of torture and assassinations as an official policy world wide. Its aggressive actions against its neighbours and of course the imprisonment of its own citizens who do not agree with official policy. The amount of times it has gone back on its promises. Its breaking of international law... the list is very long.
Each one of these incidents can be explained, and you could come up with an equally dirty laundry list for any Western power.
It is access. Right now the US has unprecedented access to Europe and other countries around the world and in many cases it has better access to European countries than European countries have to the US. That can and will now change. There was a push for it among the fringe for a long while, but now even the mainstream parties are talking about it. A good example is on airlines. American companies are allowed to own European airlines and fly between European cities. European carriers are not allowed to own fully American airlines or fly planes between US cities (unless it is say London > New York > LA route).
I'm certain the US imports more from the EU than the EU imports from the US, however I haven't researched it. We can look it up if you want. So I'm not sure what you're talking about access.
Also, I've personally flown Virgin airlines, which is owned by the UK billionaire Richard Branson, on domestic flights. Example, I've flown from Dallas to New York on Virgin. So I'm not certain why you think there is some sort of embargo against Europeans owning and operating airlines in the United States but I assure you that isn't the case. Something must have been lost in translation.
I'm sure the EU wants better terms of trade for itself, just like I'm sure the USA wants better terms for itself. That's kind of how the process of negotiation works. Usually neither side really "wins" and both sides have to compromise something.
Traditionally, the USA has been more in favor of free and open trade (less restriction) while the EU has been more protective of its trade bloc. I doubt that has changed very much since the last time I paid attention though, admittedly, that was a few years ago.
That is France, and they do not extradite to countries with the death penalty and it has been like that for donkey years. Remove the death penalty and you can have him. But I will raise you a child raping pedophile with a mass murdering terrorist being protected by the US.... or are 78 latino lives worth less than one white girl?
I have no idea who you are talking about. However, Polanski was an American citizen who broke American law while on American soil. The French have no right to hold him or to demand that the US change its domestic laws.
France still bears the shame of protecting and enabling a child rapist. That is quite a stain on their reputation.
opcorn2: Waiting on the reply to "Germany is landlocked"..................
