Just pointing out the lack of consistency.

Well your interpretation isn't how it was meant. 

I'm thinking it is the ol' Don Jr. powerplay, where if you confidently admit that you did something wrong, you can convince some people it wasn't wrong, because if it was wrong, why would you so confidently admit it?

I would typically call that a really stupid move, but these days, who knows if people will buy it.

/sarcasm time/ Trump is now claiming a ceasefire in Syria. He is claiming everyone is happy. Turkey, the US and the Kurds and that hugs and kisses are to be passed around like candy. He wants to thank Turkey, the kurds for not dying anymore and making him look bad. /sarcasm off/

Unfortunately for Trump, the Turkish foreign minister stated this is not a ceasefire but a pause and the deal basically on the table is pretty much what Turkey was doing in the first place which was to displace the Kurds annex Syria and control the region.

/sarcasm time/ I am sure the Kurds have that warm and fuzzy feeling of US assistance and help in this matter and probably will be lighting up a torch in happy jubilation in support of us helping Turkey to obtain their goals. Way to go Trump, everyone is happy with how you handled this situation. /sarcasm off/

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.

First off let me say I am in the camp (aka the seeming majority) that doesn't like that we screwed our allies .  That being said we have been meddling in that part of the world for decades.  PERHAPS if we had stayed the hell out of it all along we wouldn't be viewed as the Great Satan by some in the region and we would have no ISIS today.

In this instance as you have pointed out we weren't imposing ourselves in the region but we have many times before this which has created a great deal of hate for our country by many in that oil rich part of the world.  The middle east also is very rich in Hate not just oil. Not saying they are bad individuals but you have many "neighbors/groups" there that can't stand each other.

Let me preface this by saying:  Although I doubt it would have played out this way had we stood by our allies against Turkey ... Would you have rather been in full blown war with Turkey right now? Committing more American lives and resources, generating more hate?  I can understand DarthMettaliCube's position and more than a little of me wishes things were simple and we just minded our own business in that part of the world.  Alas things are rarely simple ...

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. 

I'd approve too, but under the conditions that either the job is done or the troops being replaced, either by nationals or by UN Blue helmets. Neither being true in Syria, so calling them back already is a bad move.

And if the US wants to stop playing World police and save some bucks, maybe vacate some of their hundreds of military bases the US has abroad instead? Especially those in safe regions like the UK, Germany or the Azores have no real right to be anymore.

Welcome to debating with Eric. A monkey will type the works of Shakespeare before Eric manages to come up with a coherent argument.

His compulsion for endless irrelevant metaphors combined (quite fittingly) with his almost Trump-like self-belief in whatever nonsense he's spouting ensures that any time spent debating him is time forever lost...

I'll start by saying not bad. An ok comparison. A few flaws, but I'll respond in a reasonable manner anyway.

I do have to point out the friendship here is crucial. The longer the friendship, the more it matters. If it's a lifelong friend then that certainly would be shocking and I would be extremely disappointed. If it's a more recent friend, who I also would only call a friend, not a really good friend, or best friend, then that would be unfortunate, but the connection isn't all that solid, so it's certainly not seen as an obligation by any means in that case.

Part of what you left out as well, was how everyone else who's tied to me closely plays into it financially. If some of those close people have the capability to pay for my treatment, but won't, even though they want me to live, then that has to be taken into account. Just because they don't want to pay, isn't an excuse, if they truly want me to live. If they don't care enough to help me survive, should any blame be put on them, and does it really matter much if the friend backs out then? If these close people can't pay or don't have connections to help in some way, then I'd be thankful for their prayers, but that's just the way it is in that case.

The question isn't a good one to pose to me in general, because while I obviously value my life, I'm fully aware that I'm not as special or crucial as some people make themselves out to be, and I realize the world is far from a perfect place, and never will be. If that was the situation, and there wasn't anything I could do about it, then that's just the way it would be. Would I hope they would continue to help by paying, sure, but I wouldn't expect it. I don't control them, and they don't control me, which is part of what makes us friends.

There's little reason to legitimately hate or blame that somewhat recent friend, because they didn't give me cancer. They also tried to help, instead of just letting me die much earlier. What about the time I was given due to the initial payments that I wouldn't have had otherwise? Did the help I gave that friend save their life? How much did it cost me? Have they done enough to pay me back even steven? What if I could never pay them back no matter what I did going forward? Is that fair, if they would've paid me back a thousand times over by continuing to pay? What if over time, the cancer keeps returning regardless? When does the friends status change to something else, like an informal caregiver, or my own personal philanthropist?

I seriously could just keep asking relevant questions that need to be taken into account, but I think I've made the point. If you or anyone else can't see any logic in what I've said here, then I can only assume it's because you're basing this mostly off of feelings, and feelings don't outweigh facts in the real world, at least not if you want stability anyway.

Everything that has a beginning has an end, and everything that happens in between is due to either fate, or everyone's choices, neither of which can be controlled, other than the choices we ourselves make, and we, are mere mortals.