How would it mean the US directly attacked the Kurds and/or freed ISIS prisoners?
When the US was there, it wasn't an all out shit-storm. The moment we left (us being there was helping), all hell broke loose.
The US pulling out is like pulling away the initial money you borrowed in the first place. The person still needs the money they initially borrowed (The Kurds still need us present to prevent all hell from breaking loose).
That this isn't making sense to you is completely mind boggling to me.
I now understand why everybody else has /ignored you. It is literally like talking to a brick wall.
How is the new friend who borrowed the money initially, going to benefit from it long term, if they are held captive, and possibly killed because the ransom isn't paid? Sure they paid off their small debt, but if they end up dead now because you didn't help, should you have even bothered to help in the first place?
How are the Kurds going to benefit from the initial help from their 'friend' the U.S, if they can't keep ISIS imprisoned, and possibly are killed by the Turks? Sure the U.S. helped defeat ISIS and kept the Turks at bay, but would the Kurds ever have been able to handle things on their own, and if not, then should the U.S. have bothered to help in the first place, and why won't anyone else help?
Even if you want to change the scenario, and say that somehow the person does get their money back, what does that matter? The new friend is in trouble now and needs help. If they don't help their new friend, and they pay the price because of it, does that mean they're a bad person? Does that mean they are the only one to blame, even though there are others who could help, who don't want them to get hurt, but may not help, because reasons? Aren't they at the very least, equally to blame if they don't help?
If the answer is, 'no, it's the new friends fault period', then all you're doing is teaching people to be selfish, because the moral of the story wouldn't be 'always keep helping someone once you've started helping them', because that would be ridiculous, it would be, 'don't bother helping anyone in the first place, because eventually you're going to get blamed for whatever happens to them that you can't or won't help solve'. Maybe that's why nobody else wants to show up and help?
Are friends always forever? Is marriage always forever? Do more people today have stronger longer lasting friendships and marriages? When those things end, do bad things happen to either person after the fact? Who's to blame for that?
How long do the Kurds have to become capable enough to completely protect themselves without issue in the future whatsoever?
If the U.S. kept backing the Kurds until they were a force to be reckoned with, if the Kurds later decide to mow through Turkey, since the U.S. is their ally and 'friend', should the U.S. go along with it? What if it's not just Turkey? What if the tide turned and the Turks got the upper hand and wanted revenge which led to a similar scenario like what's happening now? Should the U.S. ally 'friends' come to the Kurds rescue?
It's not that simple, no matter how you slice it.Last edited by EricHiggin - on 17 October 2019
The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau