The United Nations is a useless organization in that it does not live up to its mission statements.

I do agree with you that simply 'cutting the head off of the snake' could and most likely would kick off a one-way ticket to martyrdom amongst Assad supporters, although I quote "The easiest simple action could possibly be to send a small team to END THE REGIME, 'Bin Laden style". In saying this, I agree that in fact the regime as a whole needs to be eliminated, a 'Bin Laden style' deposition may work, but there are other options and it should be done so in the least repercussive means necessary so as not to allow any fragmented groups of al-Assad supporters to re-secure their agenda. Russia's alliance with Syria is to say the least the most worrisome, and yet we are letting them take center stage in resolving the conflict. In my opinion Russia should have no say in the matter, consistently lying about not just the UN's findings, but most of the worlds evidence in the on-going situation down in Syria. Allowing Assad supporters to re-establish would be catastrophic and prove to be a massive failure in peacekeeping, much like Bush's Iraq war in where the Taliban have continued to spread after the failure of Bush's mission, despite the atrocities committed. It could be possible that martyrdom spawns from just one person or groups ideology having gone sour; whereas if a bigger group, or more unified world party all agreed on the same outcome supporters of such regimes like al-Assad would realize that in fact its more than just politics, it is about morales, values, and beliefs. I have only heard about the book 'Half the sky' but do agree that its outlining claim that women's equality is "the paramount moral challenge" of our era, referenced in NY times. And as you mentioned there are many organizations and philanthropists that are contributing to women's rights and human trafficking. Although regardless of the assistance being provided, its not useful assistance coming from the United Nations. As a matter of fact, studies from several sources state that in some areas where the UN is supposed to combat sexual abuse, there have actually been rises; also involvement of sexual abuse by UN peacekeepers such as those in Congo. I retract my statement in saying that the UN "only act if they receive return on investment" but rather I don't see an effort for them to act unless it doesn't affect a nation of the UN's agenda. This being said, the nations need to sacrifice and be more firm in its fight against atrocities as its mission states. The UN was not formed because 'The world has to weigh out the opinions of its nations people vs the suffering of other nations'. It should act against terror of all forms without question. As for the case of vetoes in the United Nations, this only increases the chance for further instability within its organization. For instance, the US wanted to launch a limited strike on Syria as a sanction for its chemical weapons" Now lets look past the fact that when Obama declared the red-line crossed we hadn't received enough vital evidence yet as to who was responsible or whether or not Assad initiated the orders to begin with.. But lets say that Obama was 100% correct and ordered the launch, and Russia vetoed, this just sets the stage for an even bigger catastrophe. Why allow vetoing in the first place then if people will be allowed to retaliate on the behalf of their allies? You are right in saying that peace is practically unachievable due to cultural, religious diversities, and of course the quest for power. The United Nations is a powerful organization bringing in the majority of the world into trying to decide whats best for it. You are right in saying that these representatives from these countries each have their own opinion and most probably find it very hard to come to a unified conclusion. It doesn't take a world organization to differ in views of a situation, 2 debating people such as you and I are all it takes really. But lets not fool ourselves, the United Nations may have been a good idea on paper but its members clearly do not know how to use it. UN leaders are even admitting guilt over not knowing how to handle the Syrian issue. I truly believe that that the U.N. was and is an organization that merely was drawn up as a front to maintaining peace, order, security and rights amongst those who cannot accomplish this on their own; when behind the closed doors countries within the U.N. use it as a political venue for corruption. Not to be monotonous in my wording but I must re-iterate that the U.N. is useless due to the fact mentioned above. Yes we all want peace and safety, equality etc.. But why does a supposed UN organization even exist when all they just pretend to care about these things, but yet choose which of its problems to tackle. The problem spurs because the United Nations is not united one bit. People become frightened of those in power in the UN. Look at Chinas sudden claims of land belonging to them in the South China Sea. Countries such as the Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, Japan just have to suck it up because the UN would rather not get involved. The U.N. should be disbanded if it does not work together. If political, and monetary gains are what are driving its decision making then the UN is just a cover up for the worlds dominant nations to take advantage of weak countries.