Why haven't we already? Now that there's reasonable cause to know they've used chemical weapons, there is adequate leverage to justify action to the other members of the UN.
How can we be, on one hand, saying that we should not be involved in matters such as this, and on the other hand so gung-ho with the recent anti-bullying sentiment? Some people don't like war. I get that. But your inability to separate your feelings from making the right choices is why you do not belong in the military, not why the military should not be involved.
Some say, it's too costly. It is expensive, true, but if we really are a country that sees everyone as equal, then should not the preservation of human life trump some of our marginally effective government programs? We can't throw out the need to take action because the way action has been taken in the past needed improvement.
And then, some say they don't even want us there. True, some do not. Then again, it is more that those people are just the same as the people in the US who do not believe in military action is necessary against militant oppression. Some actually believe they were better off under the oppression of international dictators. Stockholm syndrome much? This is, again, falsely confusing the method taken in the past (which anyone can agree needs improvement) with the need for some action in the first place.
Funnily enough, those die-hard, crusty and senile 'nam veterans are right when they say liberals are castrating the country, because thanks to the criticisms of military effort in the past decade we're now afraid to engage in more military action despite it's obvious justification.
Why take the path of cowardice? Mistakes happen. War is not neat and tidy like your matching set of Ikea furniture. That doesn't mean we should stand by and let bullying happen on an international scale.