No, that would be an attack against a NATO member. Until Turkey leaves NATO that cannot be tolerated. That would be disastrous.

You're going to have to come to grips with the fact that bad things happen all over the world. And the United States is not the world's police force.

Amazing! The feminist, communist, atheist, non cis-gendered moderate rebels.

Kurds lived peacefully under Assad's Syria - no need for another violent regime change attempt in the Middle East.

You're looking at this issue in reverse. the US must protect these people, no need to go to war with Turkey.

Now if Turkey decides to go to war with the US cause they US protects these people then yes, I say beat the shit out of Turkey, NATO ally or not.

That you are arguing for what amounts to the dissolution of the largest and most effective alliance in the history of the globe really makes me wonder how personal this conflict is to you.

You should quote the people you reply to cause I don't know if you are replying to me or someone else.

But assuming it's me:

I'm not arguing for the dissolution of NATO, you are simply one sided in this matter. You seem to have a problem with the US going to war with Turkey over the NATO situation and technically you are right, but Turkey going to war against the US does not seem to bother your belief that NATO must be preserved. Let me remind you that the US is ALSO a NATO member, and in this example the US is not going to war against Turkey, the US would be protecting people without going to war. There's a difference between defending and attacking.

And from that point it's up to Turkey to remember that the US is a NATO member and therefore it should not attack the US.

The thing is, NATO does not support the Kurds and is at best neutral with the YPG. It will side with Turkey in a heartbeat in any conflict.

President Obama had even promised that he would assist so that Kurds were no longer east of the Euphrates.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/biden-visits-turkey-on-mission-to-repair-strained-relations/2016/08/24/bc684904-6a04-11e6-99bf-f0cf3a6449a6_story.html?utm_term=.95dab3f46bdd

I guess my logic though, with why I didn't vote, is that voting for Hillary Clinton, while the lesser of two evils, is still something that I couldn't bring myself to do, and in the grand scheme of things I'm just one person, so my vote itself didn't change the outcome of the election.

First of all, in my mind, NATO has never exactly been much of a force for good in the world. It's just a particular branch of American imperialism focused mainly on curbing Russian influence abroad by any, and I mean ANY, means. That in the first place. But more directly to the point at hand, "NATO ally" Turkey currently enjoys a warmer relationship precisely to Russia than they do with us. Hence why they just got through meeting with Russia's Putin and Iran's Rouhani to decide the future of Syria. You'll notice there were no other NATO members involved, nor even representatives of what formally is Syria's government. Just Turkey and NATO opponents.

What I'm trying to tell you here is that Turkey these days is a NATO ally on paper only. Functionally, they are aligned with Russia's geopolitics and interests these days, in fundamental contrast to the whole purpose of NATO. I'm hence unsure of just how it is that WE would be the ones tearing up NATO were we to in any way challenge Turkey's unilateral actions in Syria against the very forces that just recently drove ISIS out of their self-declared caliphate.

So it would seem that the true goal, rather than simply griping about the US not attacking a NATO ally, would be instead for the Kurds to enlist the support of more NATO countries, enough so to oust Turkey from NATO.  Since NATO is established to thwart Russian influence and Turkey is seemingly a powerful Russian ally, surely more can be done on that front.

It could be argued that many leftists thinking impractically like that is precisely why Donald Trump is our president right now.