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 ...

I apologize for the deluge of "agree" notifications, Jaicee...

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. 

The key in all of this is stop with the metaphorical BS and just state what you think.  Each person is going to intrepid these so called stories differently and most times they are so far removed from the topic to be worthless.  Most of your stories have way to many holes to them, do not portray the situation properly and are a complete mess. 

With that said only your last paragraph seems to really touch on your opinion instead of all this friend crap.  To answer that last paragraph, that is the responsibility the US took on when it made allies of the Kurds.  If Trump was going to stab them in the back, abandon them to slaughter then he should have broke down all relations with them when he came into office.  Instead, he continued to use them, took credit for their efforts on the ground in stabilizing the region over ISSIS and when things was looking good, knowing what Turkey had in mind decided to let GOD sort out their predicament. 

The thing is this has been Trump MO before being President.  You only have to do just a little digging to find out this has been his way of doing business for decades.  He has done this with partners, contractors you name it and now he does it in the POTUS office.  The sad part is that you are so adamant in defending everything that he does, you will defend him on this betrayal.  Is this the person you have become where you will accept betrayal as if it's just another day, lowering yourself to finding a way to defend what would be considered no matter where you are at an act of treachery.

I wonder, what was your stance when Trump stated Obama created ISIS when he removed troops out of Iraq.

You are right the situation is not simple but what did the US get out of it.  Nothing, we got a distablized region, nothing from Turkey or any measures for our allies.  We allowed Asad and Russia to come in and we allowed ISIS a lifeline back into the line light.  There was absolutely nothing we gained from this situation but chaos and another bad rep.

I think you're imagining more disagreement than actually exists between us here.

I was more agreeing with both you and DarthMettaliCube.  I understand the frustrations of both of you and can empathize with both. 

I don't think we should be just imposing ourselves on other peoples without provocation either. I was against always against the Iraq War, for example. The fact is though that we did invade Iraq, that ISIS does exist, and that something had to be done in response, not just nothing like Tulsi Gabbard believes. If anything, the fact that we in many ways created that particular mess in the first place imposed a particular moral responsibility on us to play a role in cleaning it up, I believe. I also believe that, frankly, the SDF's cause was just enough to be worth aiding anyway. One does not commonly run across a force like them fighting for democratic principles, secular government, the rights of women, etc., in that part of the world. I for one sure like and respect the SDF a lot better than Turkey's current government.

In some ways I wonder where it will ever end, this cause and effect will likely always create losers that are going to lash out if not at us then at their neighbors.  I doubt with this move that we will no longer get involved anywhere in the middle east, but part of me wishes we would.  It seems like our involvement in that part of the world never really ends well. 

I'm not anxious for more warfare in the Middle East than there must be, but I am saying that we sold these people who gave their lives for us out completely and utterly and that that's not okay.

This is your main point and I agree.  This was a spinless move.

Frankly, in the hypothetical instance you propose wherein Turkey might have invaded Northern Syria anyway, even if we didn't withdraw our forces standing in the way, I believe that would have constituted Turkey initiating war against us. You might ask them whether that would be justified rather than asking Americans whether defending, in this hypothetical alternative situation, both our allies and ourselves from a direct military attack from a "NATO ally" is acceptable. Why is the onus on us to prevent Turkey from launching a war on our forces rather than on Turkey not to do so in this hypothetical alternative universe you propose?

Had we not withdrawn I don't think Turkey would have invaded.  Let's continue on the hypothetical path though. You are right, the onus would have been on Turkey which is why I think they would have just postured rather than advance. We just basically said OK and stepped aside.

Again I don't disagree with you on the Kurds, but I do hope for a day when: We take note of how much damage we have done, what we have lost, decide to cut our losses, and we just stay the hell out the way.  If we do anything over there in the future it should be as part of a NATO initiative / response.

I'd like to take your point about my metaphorical BS seriously, yet another person followed that up with their own partially flawed version, and you haven't said squat about that. I'm either going to assume you're attacking me because you don't like which side I'm on, which again, is odd since it's pretty clear I haven't taken a side, or possibly it's a scenario where you think because I started it, anyone who follows suit doesn't require criticism. Hopefully that's not the case because then few Presidents should ever be criticized since they're just following suit for the most part, and could get away with a lot of poor decisions without legitimate push back.

If it's so evident that Trump has always been shifty and a back stabber, then it would only make sense for nations to do everything they could, to at the very least have a back up plan, if not loosen or break relations with the U.S, knowing what could happen under Trump. China certainly prepped for change. The U.S. has not always been a Kurd ally and America is not a dictatorship, so they can't expect complete consistency from the same ruling elite, and have to be thinking ahead to some degree. That's not saying Trump would be free and clear of fault in this case, but again, to put all blame on him wouldn't be taking everything necessary into account. 

I think Trump is partially correct, however, America voted the way they did, partially to get out of the Middle East back then, so while Obama did have a hand in it, I wouldn't totally blame just him. If ISIS or whatever they decide to call themselves, resurges and becomes a serious threat again, then Trump would be partially to blame for that as well, even though America partially voted for him to reign in the world policing.

Nothing has been gained as of yet. That's not to say something definitely will be gained, but Trump seems to always have a plan, even though things don't always end up going to plan. Sometimes you have to give a little to get a lot, but that can be risky at times. We'll have to see what happens in time. I also wouldn't be completely surprised if perhaps Trump again is killing two birds with one stone. He's fulfilling promises he made about less world policing, while also partially steering attention away from the Ukraine and impeachment talk. While I'm not saying by any means that allowing people to suffer so you can misdirect negative attention towards yourself is acceptable, it's strategically a smart political move at the moment, which throughout history has been used more often than it should by many in power for different reasons, where in a perfect world, should never happen.

Nothing's as simple or perfect as we'd like it to be, unfortunately.

The other person follow up with a metaphor and it accomplished the same thing.  You decided to poke holes in it because you saw the situation different which is why using them confuses the situation more than actually helps.  Being direct with your opinion is a much better course than trying to wrap it within a metaphor.

Even if Trump was crazy enough to believe this would alleviate impeachment pressure it actually had the opposite effect and added just another nugget to the pile of gold the Dems continue to dig up on this situation.  Hell, with him trying to have the G7 summit at his hotel at a time like this just shows an absolute dereliction of judgement on an scale probably never seen in the White House.

At least you trust Trump to always have a plan, I on the other hand do not have your faith.  Also you would be correct if you stated less world policing if not for the fact that he just moved troops from one area to another one then talked about how the Saudis are paying for it as if the US military is some type of mercenary force to be sent to the highest bidder.  I guess bringing our Troops back home is outweighed by how much money someone else is willing to offer up.