If the American governments reaction to Flight MH 17 doesn't make the case for Neutralism, you are never going to get it

There is so much news.  We have NPR, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox.  They all say essentially the same thing, We have no proof, the investigation will take a while, Russia is to blame.

It is hard not to escape the thought that all main stream media is propaganda.  From hyper-left MSNBC to Neocon Fox the drumbeat is little different.

The desire to blame Russia, or the Eastern Ukrainians and therefore Russia has nothing to do with real guilt or innocence.  The Neutralist does not claim to have the story behind the story as to why we absolutely have to run the table in Eastern Europe.  It might be so the dopey VP's kid can keep his sinecure.  If he's anything like the old man, he ain't cut out for real work.  Maybe it is something to do with keeping the dollar the world currency.  Of course, if we hadn't kept devaluing it over decades that might not be a problem.

Whatever the reason we're bugging Vlad, it is not worth mutually assured incineration if we go too far.

No one is asking the question, but why can't we just leave?  What if enough people said, "ya know, both incarnations of the Bush-Obama administration have gone from failure to failure, maybe we should really try something different.  Let's leave."

Of course, at that point, the neocons and other foreign policy hot shots would say, "But, but Putin could  takeover Ukraine and maybe finlandize a lot of other territory."

Yeah, so what.  If what we've seen of the Ukies these last several months, he can have them.  The only real question is what can he do to us?

In real terms, we are doing it to ourselves, but the question is fair.  There are some things he can do and probably is.  There are allusions in the press that is he talking with the Brics about setting up a rival system for settling payments.  Who can blame him?

As to hurting us, he can take measures on the periphery of taking the part of countries that we are bugging elsewhere.  Again, why wouldn't he?

If we were not there, much of the incentive for the first goes away and just about all of the second evaporates.

He can not come after us with a carrier fleet and an invasion flotilla because he does not have one, nor will he acquire one anytime soon.

What do we get out of saying au revoir?  We see an end to a sea of problems and expenses.

That's it folks.  We don't have to be there, in Europe, the Middle East, Asia, Africa anywhere.  We don't have to be there.

Now there are some out there who will argue that we have to be over there to secure petroleum supplies.  I remember the argument some local talk show nut used to use locally, "What is our oil doing under there soil?"  Don't have a ready answer, but oil is fungible and usually available for purchase.  Maybe we consult the Swiss on how a neutral gets hydrocarbons.

The point is we really don't have to be there.  The moms and dads who have lost sons and daughters since 2001 have had them stolen, because, in real terms, they did not have to be there.

So if you, my one or two readers have a neutralist ethos, when someone you know spouts off about how we have to show Putin a thing or two, ask why and don't stop.  When he proves to you that he has listened and absorbed all that the talking heads have spouted, don't try to prove him wrong, just keep asking why we should care.

And when he says, "Yeah, but he could be in Moldova in a week!"  Ask him what part of the United States Moldova is in?