Russia, China renew opposition to foreign intervention in Syria

I'm sure that they will find a way to come together, and pick a leader and spread democracy around the world, because you know its so going to happen.

It has been over a year, and they are still not close to unified leadership.

Same could be said with rebels in Libya.

No, no, no @UtterlyImpeccable, that's not what I said at all. You ask Assad and the rebel leader to both go to a secure location where high ranking UN diplomatic officials preside over some form of negotiations to do two things. First, disarm Syria's army and the rebels (for now). Second, get some form of democratic government in Syria that will please both the rebels and Assad. For instance, write up a Constitution forcing Assad to go through some sort of legislative body to do things, and establishing a judicial system. Then you leave plenty of UN observers in Syria to ensure the constitution is upheld and peace is maintained. After the situation in the country becomes stable once again (hopefully withing a few months to a year), you pull out the majority of UN observers and begin sending in aid and charity groups like the Red Cross and Peace Corps to rebuild the country's shattered infrastructure. Of course, this entire scenario relies on two things. One, there is an actual rebel leader, because without one there can't be negotiations, and two, the UN observers can actually do shit.

Well there really isn't a rebel leader, and I don't see Assad willingly giving up his iron grip on Syria.

If there was a rebel leader then we could do it. And of course he won't willingly give it up, but it will be made clear if negotiations don't go through Assad will be taken out of the country and forbidden to return.

I would much prefer some kind of negociation (even if forced) than the 'peacekeeping' you were suggesting earlier.

My biggest fear would to have troops bogged down in Syria, such as we have in Afghanistan and Iraq. Try to make both parties understand that peace is in their interests.
You would also have to be accountable for any civilian casualties you cause, so extreme care would be needed.

I don't believe Syria would be great after this, but perhaps slightly less violent.

Fair Enough.

That would lead to another Iraq or Afghanistan.

Yeah guys Assad really will agree to being the leader if a democratic government I mean he'll never retake his iron grip after the UN leaves.

Sarcasm.

I can't remember the exact length of time but didn't the new Syrian constitution make it so Assad would be in charge for another 20 to 30 years.

Because a democratic government with a new military, stable constitution, and somewhat happy and probably quite loyal people will totally let their hated and feared dictator take over again, right?

The problem is, there always seems to be people who support men like Assad.

But there are more that dislike him and would fight against him if a legitimate government was on their side.

Your problem with this logic is if Assad gives up power. Currently, that is unlikely.

Currently, the west is not arrayed against him and currently there is not the threat of US Tomahawk missiles hovering over his tank parks and airstrips.

Imperialist bastard.

Now that Syria is starting to shoot down Turkish planes, this will get even more interesting. Considering Turkey is a NATO member state, a host of many Syrian refugees, and is no friend of Assad, the ante has been raised.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18561219