You would think that the U.S. had learned its lesson about involvement in foreign wars that do not directly threaten our security. Think of Vietnam, Afghanistan (we stayed way too long), and Iraq. Those conflicts cost lives and trillions of dollars, dollars we must borrow.
Perhaps more importantly the results are uncertain. We helped the radical Muslims force the Soviets out of Afghanistan. The Taliban took over and provided a headquarters for Al-Qaeda prior to 9/11. We overthrew a dictator in Iraq, Saddam Hussein, who nonetheless served U.S. interests as a counterweight to Iran, and destabilized the entire area.
It is terrible that gas was used on anyone, but it is not our job to police the world, we cannot afford it even if we wanted to do so. Some of those who support a missile strike on Syria say that will not be enough. Others argue that one strike will solve the problem of Assad using poison gas to kill his own people. What exactly will a military strike achieve? Such actions may strengthen one of the many factions fighting against the current regime in Syria, namely Al-Qaeda, the perpetrator of the 9/11 catastrophe. Does the U.S. want to expedite the triumph of Al-Qaeda and its control of the Syrian WMD? Does the U.S. then invade Syria to prevent Al-Qaeda from doing something with their capability, like attacking Israel?
The Russians have a naval base in Syria. If we attack Syria what will they do? Are there good actors on either side? The insurgents were televised executing prisoners of war whom they had tortured.
In conclusion, there are many reasons why we should not get involved in this conflict and none except moral posturing for why we should.
Jim Shockley, USMC (ret.)