system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
I don't think that US intervention in Syria is about the use of chemical weapons, mainly because we stood idly by while Saddam gassed Iran previously. CMV.

A German writer published that the US secretly told Saddam that he had a hole in his defenses in the Iran Iraq war, that Iran was about to surpirse attack. And we knew before telling him that he was going to deploy chem weapons against them but we still told him about it. And he still did it.

I think this is a guise, as usual, by the US to continue its conquest of the middle east to spread the seeds of "democracy" to every place that would benefit them if they were west-friendly governments. 

We used the "presence of WMD" in Iraq to justify a blatantly wasteful campaign for nearly a decade, and we have left that country in shambles.

I think the recent chemical weapons attack was staged by a third party to initiate our involvement.
gpt
First, the US isn't truly a unitary actor. The same people who made decisions during the Iran-Iraq war, are no longer making decisions now. You can't point to the policies of one administration as evidence for the intentions of another. Thinking that way about the US, or any country, is FAR too simplistic. It's what conspiracy nuts do, and it's the main thing they get wrong.

Second, the US's main goal, like any rational actor, is to increase it's own wealth. It will always act in it's best interest, though the decisions that  encompass that change from administration to administration. Understand that as the hegemon, what is actually in the US's best interest is peace and stability in the region (and the world as a whole) as that's what will foster free trade and keep the oil flowing. You say the US is continuing it's "conquest" of the Middle East and installing west-friendly governments, but what it's REALLY doing trying to isolate and minimize chaotic disruptive regimes. When the US went into Iraq, the Bush administration truly thought that removing Hussein from power would help stabilize the region, they didn't do it because he was "anti-western."Clearly, they were wrong. If we were really trying to destroy anti-Western countries, Pakistan would have been the first to go. 

With that in mind, the US has no interest in an escalation of the the conflict in Syria. It has no dog in this fight. Whoever wins, the US loses. Getting involved will only make a shitty situation worse, and the US knows that. Trust me, no one is more keenly aware of the capabilities s-300 air defense system than the US military establishment. If the US WANTED in to Syria, they would have gone a long, long time ago, under the guise of saving lives.

The question is at what point do the atrocities become so bad that standing idly by, while having the ability to stop it, becomes impossible? The majority of people in the Syria itself believe that point was years ago now.