Syria

What should the United States or any country, do, about Syria, i.e. the war on civilians who cannot or choose not to flea the war zone?  If expense was not a concern, perhaps the U.N. could send in troops to enforce a temporary cease fire until all civilians who wish to relocate to safer places could do so with the U.N.'s help.  Then the U.N. could pull out and let the combatants, i.e. those who are the primary bullies supporting Assad, and those who wish they could bully the primary bullies, kill each other.  That's probably not going to happen.  The next best thing and the principled thing to do is to completely withdraw support for the primary bullies and to withhold any sort of support for those who support the primary bullies.   Russia, for example.  Boycotting the Olympic games has been suggested and rejected by President Obama.  The purpose of that boycott would be to somehow punish Russia for giving asylum to Snowden.  It seems more punitive to the American athletes who would be prevented from participating.  A worldwide boycott of the Games based on Russia's support of Syria would be something I might favor, however.
        In addition to withholding support from any country that supports the bully Assad, the Syrian air power should be completely decimated by the international community.  The U.N. should also establish a total land, sea, and air blockade of Syria.  The only thing allowed to enter the country should be humanitarian supplies for civilians, and maybe not even that if the Assad forces would seize those supplies.  If and when Assad is defeated, if a military or religious dictator takes his place, the blockade should continue indefinitely.
       As we have seen in Egypt, there are countless religious bullies in Arab countries who want to use political power to force their religious agenda on the whole population.  This is not in the best interest of these countries' populations nor is it in the best interest of the world in general.

There is now talk of a debate in Congress as to whether or not the U.S. armed forces should be used to punish the Assad regime and make it incapable of using its chemical weapons.  In writing that, I am suddenly aware of how impractical that sounds.  If Assad has a truck available and delayed timer explosives, boom!  On the other hand to let him get away with using chemical weapons without consequences, does not seem any wiser than Churchill allowing Hitler to get away with his aggression prior to World War II.  Bullies who do not suffer negative consequences tend to become more aggressive.
       Russia's plan to arrange for Assad to give his chemical weapons to the United Nations would perhaps prevent future chemical attacks, but not necessarily.  Assad could acquire more chemical weapons subsequently.  Since there were no consequences this time, why not use the new weapons as well?  There needs to be consequences for the chemical attacks, military or otherwise.  The indifference of some Americans using the excuse of being "war weary" for wanting to allow Assad to go unpunished, undeterred, supported, I would ask what has happened to the idea of having principles?  What Assad did is wrong and needs to be addressed by the world community.  I support President Obama's desire to do something about it.