A few reasons not to bomb Syria

• The "moderates" engaging in "ethnic cleansing" of the Kurdish population (and possibly other groups as well)
• The "moderates" attacking and sometimes engaging in wholesale slaughter of the typically-neutral Christian population
• That, to quote a bit of this article, "historically speaking, intervening on behalf of rebels increases the number of civilians who are killed by increasing the desperation of government forces." (More on that research here).
• The money spent on this may be better spent elsewhere - e.g. "the same amount of American money [spent in Libya] could have saved almost 590,000 people from malaria, and the U.S. spending was only about one-fourth of total spending." (more details here).
• (I don't think the UN is all that useful, but none the less it seems noting that the US bombing Syria would also seem to violate international law)
• A Slate article asks whether people can "stomach all the dead Syrians" but, I wonder if historical precendents like anti-Soviet actions in Afghanistan might have left that country worse off - consider, e.g., what Afghanistan was like in the 1950s/1960s

Basically, in place of one bad leader odds seems to be good that you'll wind up with a different set of leaders who are no better and quite possibly worse. And you're likely to wind up with more deaths in the area as a result, instead of the spending that money in places where it might be able to do more good. Shipping gas masks there sounds to me like a good idea but I'm not sure I'd opt for much more.

(On a tangent, it's interesting to note that the "humanitarian hawks" mentioned in this article as advocating intervention here and formerly advocating intervention in Libya are disproportionately female - another indicator that more female leaders won't mean less war).