A Non-Credible Threat

Interesting that the UN is starting to realize that their "threats" have so little backing that the minor tyrants can continue their bloody rule with impunity as long as they pay minor lip service to the UN. The UN is about worthless anymore. I wonder if they will totally collapse as the League of Nations did, or get the long overdue return to its original purpose. I am betting upon collapse with a new organization, or two, trying to take its place.

Why two? I foresee the Russians and Chinese working with the forces of tyranny around the globe trying to have an anti-democratic group who will fight to destroy the democracies. In form, this will basically just be the UN now, but without the democratic governments who will have formed a self defense group based loosely upon a US-Australian axis. Who else will be involved? Many of the same countries found in the current Coalition of the Willing who are supporting US Central Command. You can look at their website for a current list. After this break, there will be a Colder War, portions of which are already seen in places like the Sudan where the global tyrants are not allowing the UN the teeth to stop the genocide of the blacks. (Good thing that Je$$ie Jack$on is not involved yet, that might scare the nice Peaceful Muslims into ending the slaughter despite the continued "threats" of the UN.)

I pray to G-d that I am wrong about this. The slaughter will be horrendous. And that is just in North America! Africa and South Asia will see millions of dead. Pity.


A Non-Credible Threat: "In game theory economics a 'non-credible threat' is a term used to describe a threat by a player in a sequential game that will not be carried out but is nonetheless made in the hope that it will be believed and, therefore, that the threatened undesirable action will not need to be carried out.

The United Nations has spent four years making non-credible threats against Sudan. Unfortunately for the U.N.--and most especially for the people of Darfur--the Sudanese government has taken none of these threats seriously.

This reality is not lost on United Nations Deputy Secretary General Mark Malloch Brown. Speaking candidly at a recent Brookings Institute event, Brown admitted that in Darfur: '...there is a little bit of bluff playing, in that we're saying to President Bashir of Sudan, give us consent for deployment or else. And there's a lot of questions about what plausibly the 'or else' is. And President Bashir looks at us and he thinks he's seen us blink, and that makes it hugely difficult to credibly address this issue of winning his consent to our deployment.'"