Publicus

12 hours ago, amvet said:

I think you gotta ask yourself how smart this whole kneeling, sitting and fisting protest is.  One, what is the protest about?  It's about cops harassing young black men.  So what is the best way to fix that?  Confrontational conflict protests is the answer of the young black men of the NFL.  Now, how smart is that?  

 

A bunch of young black men sitting around and talking about ending police harassment and one says, "I know how, lets get the cops enraged, red faced popping angry enough to shoot us that should stop the harassment eh?"  How do we do that?  "Well, lets attack one of their sacred symbols, a cop totem like the National Anthem.  That'll will anger them  em off enough to  pee their pants."

 

How to stop a fight?  Make the aggressive party with all the guns more angry than he already is.  Ya, that works.    

As you drive on and also increase your thread postodmeter the self-revealing thriller above makes it all worthwhile thx.

The posts in their aggregate make your statement. This one however is the duzy.

I'd reiterate that it goes unstated everyone is entitled to his opinion and that what is stated leaves you highly vulnerable. In your own words of course.

1 hour ago, amvet said:

I agree with you 100% and have said so many times. 

 

Does kneeling or sitting or the black power salute during the National Anthem get many Americans very angry including Ruth the Supreme Court Justice and the President of the United States? Yes it does. 

 

Is getting people angry a good way to bring about compromise and change? No it's not. 

 

Maybe you all should read how to win friends and influence people or something like that. 

Although your post is to another poster it does reinforce the obvious, i.e., Trump is not the only guy with a bag of tricks bigger than an elephant. It is indeed quite a sack you have there.

No pun on politics intended of course. But Obercommando Mike Ditka whom you laud stands by Trump while the Trump athletic supporter Tom Brady read Trump the riot act on this one. So perhaps Brady's balls are not inflated after all.

The thread has gone from being the long train of horrors to the long and slow motion great train wreck of 2017.

So now you wanna make the coin toss best two of three or what.

On 10/2/2017 at 2:59 PM, amvet said:

I don't disagree with anything you said.  Civil disobedience is a form of protest as is disrespect for the National Anthem.  I respect both.  I would point out that sitting, kneeling or raising a fist in protest during the National Anthem is just that protest and protected speech. 

You are fixated on the word and notion of 'disrespect'. This is erroneous.

You are also in a dance marathon with the notion the protestors are engaged in or suggest civil disobedience. The participating NFL personnel are not engaged in civil disobedience. They challenge no law; they break no law. There is no legal consequence to their actions under the Constitution. The certain NFL members are protesting the national police homicide crime wave that broke out against numerous unarmed black Americans. 

On 10/2/2017 at 7:20 PM, amvet said:

You are of course entitled to your opinion but Ruth and I think he's dumb.

It is of course unstated that you are entitled to your opinion.

What is stated and what is unmistakable throughout the thread is that it makes you highly vulnerable.

Kaepernick's contract and payments is yet another instance of it. No disrespect intended of course.

1 hour ago, amvet said:

Disrespecting the totems of America will cause a negative reaction among many people.  The NFL footballers are doing that and are willing to accept the consequences in Kaepernick's case he had a 129 million dollar contract now he does not.  Would you call that smart?

Yes.

NFL owners are not dumb either. For one thing a good number of the owners are currently backtracking from their punishment of Kaepernick's despite the fact the super bowl twice-MVP never violated a law, a rule, a regulation local, state, federal. The QB never for a moment engaged in a civil disobedience nor did he call anyone and his mother SOB.

$61 million of $129m is for a career ending injury only. It's guaranteed in the contract so the number is seized upon by media which rarely state the caveat. It wuz a seven year contract by which he loses pay each year he doesn't do any super bowl snaps. Each year the team can cut him by April 1st for any reason. Guess what?

Never mind anyway cause Kaepernick wuz sent home to stay with $29 million bucks in his pockets. The long and the short of it is that Colin Kaepernick is a guy who turned out to be a SJW of impact and smarts.

Perfect.

1 hour ago, amvet said:

The reason for the plethora of posts is there are 6 or 7 people attacking my position and me.  Your latest is I have become what I once fought against.  Of course, you say that without knowing what I fought against.  I fought against the people trying to kill me and for the most part that was the US Army.  I am not now trying to kill anything.  I don't even squash bugs it's a Buddhist thing - I live in Thailand.

 

The only thing I have maintained steadfastly is that sitting, raising a fist or kneeling during the playing of the National Anthem is disrespectful and it is meant to be disrespectful because if it wasn't disrespectful it wouldn't be a protest.  

Well now what you call a "plethora" of posts when quantified exceeds a hundred. Your one note theme is disrespect. Numerous fellow posters have reacted with myriad takes in rejecting your thesis. So we see that despite a vast counter presentation of diverse arguments you will not be moved to include possibly moving on. You instead keep beating the drum of disrespect. Indeed, you can it being "steadfast" while I might dissent respectfully from the self-characterizing of your posts. I would characterize your proliferation of posts as  redundant. One might also say fixated. You have the right of course -- the privilege indeed. It becomes problematical however when it becomes self-defeating. 

Just sayin.

1 hour ago, amvet said:

I don't disagree with anything you said.  Civil disobedience is a form of protest as is disrespect for the National Anthem.  I respect both.  I would point out that sitting, kneeling or raising a fist in protest during the National Anthem is just that protest and protected speech. 

NFL expressing themselves in this are not engaged in a civil disobedience. Indeed, you yourself confirm the participating NFL personnel from the owners' booth to the field are not violating any law, consciously or unconsciously.

There is no connection whatsoever between the NFL-anthem protests and violating a law. Doing a civil disobedience confirms a willingness to violate a law and to accept the consequences -- participating NFL personnel do neither. Fact is these guys are a lot smarter and culturally agile than youse over there could imagine them to be.

20 hours ago, amvet said:

I have no problem with protests against the way America handles race relations.  It's legal.  I don't care.  Protesting by showing disrespect of the American Anthem or flag or President is legal.  I could care less.  But it is what it is.  Anyone can disrespect any American symbol and any American including the President can have an opinion about it.  It don't bother me.   

Methinks you yourself may be approaching a hundred posts to the thread that indicate your feelings and thoughts in the matter. Plus engendering three times that number of posts in reply and response to your, er, indifference -- or your stated state of not being in a bother.

Methinks further you do proud the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States. Y'know, the professional veterans. What does bother me about those guyz is that they have become what they once fought against. If you know what I mean.

Just sayin.

10 hours ago, amvet said:

Is wearing a mini skirt disrespectful? Is wearing a mini skirt in a Buddhist temple disrespectful? 

 

Conduct During Playing.—During a rendition of the national anthem—

(1) when the flag is displayed—

(A) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last note;

(B) members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not in uniform may render the military salute in the manner provided for individuals in uniform; and

(C) all other persons present should face the flag and stand at attention with their right hand over the heart, and men not in uniform, if applicable, should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart; and

(2)  when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed.

No disrespect intended but maybe you shoudda counted how many times "should" and "may" are written into the statement. These are two words of a soft impact. The word "disrespect" is not in the statement. Neither is the word "respect" in the statement. One needs to do a deep dive to find words of a hard impact in it.

10 hours ago, amvet said:

The disrespect of norms established while the American Anthem is playing is done to express dislike of the American system of treating black people.  To try and insist otherwise flies in the face of logic.  If it was not disrespectful why would they do it?  That's the point.  Showing disrespect.  The same as civil disobedience as opposed to violent protest.  

The Constitution is the norm. It is the ultimate value. Which is why an oath contains words of a hard value. The Constitution contains words such as "shall" or "shall not." Moreover, civil disobedience is executed against an existing law. The "Conduct" statement is not law so there is no connection or comparison -- there is only a contrast. NFL protesters employ their right under the Constitution. One needs to respect both. 

9 hours ago, amvet said:

Nothing to do with symbolism rather polite deference to tradition like taking off one's shoes before going into a Buddhist Temple or women not wearing shorts or short skirts.  There are many places in Buddhism where women are not allowed.  Maybe right maybe wrong and you may protest but know everyone knows you are showing disrespect if you wear shoes or a short skirt in a Temple.

The Constitution is on a respectful display at the National Archive and it is okay to view it while wearing shoes and shorts, male and female alike. The Constitution is the real deal. The Constitution is the fundamental document. The anthem and the flag are credenda and symbols that exist under the Constitution. Religion exists under the terms and conditions of the Constitution.  

7 hours ago, Thongkorn said:

Its ironic that many Military personnel all over the world put their lives on the line to fight for the cause of freedom, Right or wrong they do as they are commanded, Then people use the freedom to disrespect the flag the military people fought under to provide them with the right to protest,

There is no irony to the fact the UCMJ does not apply to civilians. It is just fact, it has always been true and no one should expect this to change.

Civilians are not required to snap to salute the anthem or the flag, nor do civilians salute military personnel whether EP or officer. Civilians in the general society do not post or retire the colors each day nor do civilians have a MOS. Indeed, when civilians hit the beaches they do it with beach blankets, a beach umbrella and a cooler.

The U.S. military does not have included in its mission militarizing or commanding the civilian society. Patriotism takes many forms to include joining the military to take the oath to support and defend the Constitution. The Constitution is supreme -- it is the law of the land which each member of the military is sworn to support and defend and which civilians live by each day. Irony occurs only when the militarily minded fail in this vital respect.

NFL is btw a bunch of civilians.

16 hours ago, wayned said:

Maybe for professional students, but mine ran out the day that I graduated and I got a letter to report for a physical 15 days later.  I avoided the draft by enlisting into the service branch and MOS that I wanted and turned down an OCS program that pretty much guaranteed that you would graduate with a bulls eye painted on your back!

A wise decision. Life expectancy of a 2LT in Vietnam was six months. Trump was meanwhile enjoying the high life.

8 hours ago, smotherb said:

I am afraid I do not share your optimistic views on our intelligence or Trump. Trump has been so wrong so many times on so many global issues, that it's needless to say, I take anything he says with a cellar of salt--remember, Trump knows more about ISIS than the generals; perhaps that is why he said we bombed Iraq. Although, I do have more confidence in our intelligence agencies than in Trump, the intelligence has been wrong numerous times in the past and that was on tangible items, like weapons systems. Intelligence is even less dependable on intangible items, like devious planning--you do remember 9/11 don't you? Consequently, I believe anyone who underestimates his enemy is a fool; therefore, I do not care to continue this dialogue.

Don't give up the ship.

5 minutes ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

You omitted the term....... "democratically elected"... there somewhere.

Trump is our current president and next unindicted coconspirator.

15 minutes ago, amvet said:

You wrote, "VFW and other national veterans organizations need to concern themselves with veterans programs only" No they don't.  They are free to comment on whatever the majority of their members like as it's a right guaranteed in the Constitution.   Because you are an odd duck as far as vets go is OK with me.  If you have a Vets org that wants to disrespect the anthem by kneeling down or anything else I'd support your right to comment. 

UCMJ hasn't applied to me in several decades.

It doesn't apply to you either any more. UCMJ has never applied to civilians.

Your notions of disrespect derive from a code that rightfully does not apply to the civilian society and its members. The Constitution is supreme, not the anthem or the flag and not a narrow and specific set of codes that demand a disciplined compliance by the few.

What applies to all of us is the Constitution some of us affirmed to preserve and protect. Your demands that civilian society adhere to the military demands concerning anthem playing is OTT. You can blow your whistle all you like but youse on the right have only yourselves going OTT.

Next time you point and tap the NFL onto your tv screen and see the flag and hear the anthem do kindly remember this: Military music is to music as military justice is to justice. Much of the Constitution does not apply to active duty military personnel but the Constitution does apply to youse now. Kindly learn to respect it and to respect the civilian society the Constitution does guide and serve and who live by it each day. 

5 hours ago, amvet said:

In other words the NFL can comment on non football issues because I agree with them and the VFW can't comment on non VFW issues because I don't agree with them.

Any batter who keeps swinging like that is gonna strike out. He'd be in the league's top ten whiffers.

Again, civilian and military relations are clearly proscribed in the Constitution. Again, again, many veterans want to militarize the civilian soceity, i.e., impose on civilian society the values and mores of the military. This calls forth the matter of civilian control of the military to include respecting civilian life and its values and mores. Many veterans need to adjust to the civilian society which is the 99% of us. I had no difficulty readjusting but we see at the internet discussion boards many vets demand civilian compliance to military general orders, the Uniform Code of Military Justice and to the infallibility of the military ways of being a patriot.

The Constitution all members of the military took an oath to preserve, protect, defend, guides us and it is determining in all matters to include the national anthem and the flag. The anthem is not above the Constitution. The anthem exists subordinate to the Constitution.

15 hours ago, smotherb said:

You think we know what KJU is doing and you are spouting the same rhetoric that has been said and supposed for years--capital Yawn. I just hope our decision-makers are better prepared than that. However, with Trump involved it looks grim.   

 

14 hours ago, smotherb said:

You think we know what KJU is doing and you are spouting the same rhetoric that has been said and supposed for years--capital Yawn. I just hope our decision-makers are better prepared than that. However, with Trump involved it looks grim.   

 

Trump is informed in the White House and in his administration by experts on the CCP-PRC and North Korea. Trump's China advisers are indeed experts in what is occurring. The only difference between the China experts of past administrations and the China experts in the Trump administration is that Trump's China experts are China hawks. As China and NK hawks through and through the experts are strident, they have strong views and they are aggressive in their approach. So you might want to get ready for a very tough haul up the road ahead.

UC Davis professor on leave Peter Navarro got the Trump wrecking crew's attention because he had spoken and written on Chinese trade, economics and militarism. Navarro is well known for, "Death by China" and "Crouching Tiger: What China's Militarism Means for the World."

Michael Pillsbury of the Hudson Institute is an informal Trump adviser. Since the Reagan dayze Dr. Pillsbury has been a national security interlocutor with the PLA and the Boyz in Beijing themselves. Dr. Pillsbury is the author most recently of "The Hundred-Year Marathon: China's Secret Strategy to Replace America as the Global Superpower." The hundred years being of course 1949-2049, of which Pillsbury says, writing from the CCP grand design, “China  will  set  up  a  world order that  will  be  fair  to  China,  a world  without  American  global  supremacy,  and  revise  the  U.S.-­‐ dominated  economic  and  geopolitical  world  order  founded  at  Bretton  Woods  and  San  Francisco  at the  end  of  World  War  II.”  

Some other China hawks are Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and US Trade Representative nominee Robert Lighthizer who was Reagan's trade representative. These among others say CCP Boyz in Beijing are already engaged in an economic war against the U.S. which the Boyz have extended into military challenges such as the South China Sea. They are of course right. There are others in the administration and in the public policy organizations whose names we know well, such as Heritage Foundation.

All of Trump's China advisers are friends of Taiwan while also being the strident enemies of Kim Jong Un and the Kim Dynasty. They don't respect the Frenchman at heart Pres. Kim of SK either. Conversely, Japan PM Shinzo Abe is their kind of guy. These guyz know what Kim is up to and they know what Xi is up to and what it means to the United States. And they mean to stop them and it. Cold if necessary.

11 hours ago, smotherb said:

You think we know what KJU is doing and you are spouting the same rhetoric that has been said and supposed for years--capital Yawn. I just hope our decision-makers are better prepared than that. However, with Trump involved it looks grim.   

 

Trump is informed in the White House and in his administration by experts on the CCP-PRC and North Korea. Trump's China advisers are indeed experts in what is occurring. The only difference between the China experts of past administrations and the China experts in the Trump administration is that Trump's China experts are China hawks. As China and NK hawks through and through the experts are strident, they have strong views and they are aggressive in their approach. So you might want to get ready for a very tough haul up the road ahead.

UC Davis professor on leave Peter Navarro got the Trump wrecking crew's attention because he had spoken and written on Chinese trade, economics and militarism. Navarro is well known for, "Death by China" and "Crouching Tiger: What China's Militarism Means for the World."

Michael Pillsbury of the Hudson Institute is an informal Trump adviser. Since the Reagan dayze Dr. Pillsbury has been a national security interlocutor with the PLA and the Boyz in Beijing themselves. Dr. Pillsbury is the author most recently of "The Hundred-Year Marathon: China's Secret Strategy to Replace America as the Global Superpower." The hundred years being of course 1949-2049, of which Pillsbury says, writing from the CCP grand design, “China  will  set  up  a  world order that  will  be  fair  to  China,  a world  without  American  global  supremacy,  and  revise  the  U.S.-­‐ dominated  economic  and  geopolitical  world  order  founded  at  Bretton  Woods  and  San  Francisco  at the  end  of  World  War  II.”  

Some other China hawks are Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and US Trade Representative nominee Robert Lighthizer who was Reagan's trade representative. These among others say CCP Boyz in Beijing are already engaged in an economic war against the U.S. which the Boyz have extended into military challenges such as the South China Sea. They are of course right. There are others in the administration and in the public policy organizations whose names we know well, such as Heritage Foundation.

All of 'em are friends of Taiwan while also being the strident enemies of Kim Jong Un and the Kim Dynasty. They don't respect the Frenchman at heart Pres. Kim of SK either. Conversely, Japan PM Shinzo Abe is their kind of guy. These guyz know what Kim is up to and they know what Xi is up to and what it means to the United States. And they mean to stop them and it. Cold if necessary.

The central issue in Washington is that Kim III is set on using his nuclear weapons and deterrent to try to separate the U.S. from its allies in the region. This includes South Korea and Japan, Taiwan and the nations at the South China Sea where the CCP Dictator-Tyrants are in violation of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

There are also serious concerns in Washington Kim will sell nuclear weapons to terrorists that are unrelenting in their fanatical mission to try to penetrate into the United States to detonate.

The Kim Dynasty has from 1950 been determined to reunite the peninsula under the rule of Pyongyang. Xi Jinping supports this while being nervous too Kim & Co. are building a nuclear arsenal. If countries of the region were to go nuclear Xi and China would have horrendous problems trying to dominate and control the region.

The pressing imperative in Washington is how to address these new and real menaces to the United States with efficacy and for the long term. Failure to do so would present serious consequences to the U.S. national security and it would seriously destabilize international order and global security.   

While Xi and the Boyz in Beijing feared what a Potus Clinton would do, Xi & Co never expected to have to deal with the China hawks Potus Trump has directing him inside the White House -- former UC Prof. Peter Navarone to name but one bull in the WH China Shop.

Just now, inThailand said:

a whiner who doesn't like the outcome.

I see we have another sore winner from November.

It's a long time to stay sore, it is.

Youse won. Get over it.

18 minutes ago, inThailand said:

Final score....

Trump 1, NFL 0

We need a new scorekeeper who knows how to score the game.

You're fired.  

Try baseball or hockey instead where the numbers seldom get big. 

NFL players, coaches and officials may have a consensus at this point that it's time to put the baby to bed.

Let Trump find a new nipple to slurp on even if he might continue to suck on this one a little while longer.

Perhaps it's grown past the point of diminishing returns for each side. Trump has schmoozed his base more and the participating players and NFL officials on up have made their point that black lives do matter. Each side is reinforced.

Trump will find more and new ways to divide and also to fracture. This isn't Trump's critical mass of chaos but it is inevitable Trump will eventually go white hot.

52 minutes ago, smotherb said:

Go for it Braveheart, stick that chest out and strut and hope you are right. I think KJU is more likely to be playing with Trump and is planning to sell his nuclear devices to third parties. Gee I wonder if you could smuggle a nuke into the US--since the wall isn't up, of course--and use a common vehicle as a delivery system? How well could your unbeatable US technology handle that? 

What some seem not to know is that the U.S. does know what Kim III is doing and what he is up to. One is to use his nuclear weapons program to try to separate the U.S. from its allies Seoul and Tokyo....and all the U.S. allies of the region. Another Kim design is the Kim Dynasty obsession to "unify" the peninsula under its rule, sooner or later is fine by Him. U.S. is absolutely opposed to Kim's nuclear programs because we know also Kim will sell to the buyers who are determined to destroy us directly, such as the "third parties" you rightfully reference. (Pardon my yawn thx.)

If you might be dismissing absolutely that Trump would strike conventionally then you might consider packing a lunch to go to Pyongyang to stand at the statues of Kim I and Kim II for a while. Trump's hawk China advisers such as Peter Navarone from UC have Trump strong arming Xi Jinping, reading the riot act to the Frenchman at heart President Kim of SK and reassuring Japan PM Shinzo Abe that the U.S. isn't going anywhere because of Kim or for any reason. 

Did I mention Kim III shut up on firing missiles into the waters near Guam -- it suddenly struck him they might get blasted by Thaad and Patriot batteries there and also USN Aegis systems. I did indeed mention it and I reference it again because you keep posting things we already know of and other things you might need to brush up on occasionally. (Were you ever in the AVF btw?)

You might need to also reconsider who the pupil might be. For one thing you still have not discussed -- or alas revealed -- what the U.S. needs to fear about the NK armed forces that we don't already know of and about, and that we aren't prepared to neutralize. The thread topic is after all about Kim shooting down things American that might be flying proximate to Him. 

On 9/28/2017 at 3:01 PM, amvet said:

I don't like much of what Trump does.  I liked even less what LBJ and NIxon did to me personally.  I'm a vet and don't kneel down during the playing of the National Anthem of America.  I honestly don't see what that has to do with football players disrespecting the American Anthem.  I'm a member of the 1.7 million member VFW who also slammed the small minority of football players who disrespected the American flag. 

 

I don't like Trump but unlike you and many people commenting on this thread I do respect the President because he is the President and the Anthem because it is the American Anthem. 

These guys are football players and owners though it certainly is not all of 'em. They and we over here are civilians. So I would ask respectfully that former military personnel accept civilian society, its mores, values, beliefs, behaviors. It is risky to the Constitution to try to militarize the civilian society as too many former military personnel campaign to do in their retirement or after they have concluded their active duty military service. It's the veterans and the retired career military personnel especially who need to adjust to civilian society rather than try to make the civilian society more like the military. 

While the post uses the word "disrespect" twice it also manufactures and packages a lot of fudge. 

The bottom line is that civilian Americans decide how each of us regards our president and each of we who are civilian Americans decide how to conduct him/her self when the national anthem is played. VFW and other national veterans organizations need to concern themselves with veterans programs only while leaving individual civilian Americans to their particular convictions in respect of the national anthem, the flag, the Constitution. The Constitution guides and determines our interactions with the anthem and the flag not vice-versa.  

5 hours ago, midas said:

I'm not bashing the US. In fact I used to love the US. It's those that are controlling the US that I don't like

Lost love is a tragedy indeed but it's rarely Shakespearian. Pedestrian would be a good word for it.

I don't care much for many of the elites of the USA or of any place but I thank my lucky stars we the people of the USA can continue to effect change and to self-correct. While I do sympathize with the people of NK born under their dim stars I can sympathize with sheep too. Bill Gates is a good guy to have among others in U.S. elites while Kim Jong Un is the only thing he could be over there.

Did I mention Kim quit squawking about firing missiles into waters off Guam once SecDef Mattis visited SK and Japan and said our Thaad and Patriot systems on Guam exist for a reason. I did mention it, yes, so at this point I'm just sayin.  And what I'm sayin is that all their fundamentals are wrong over there.

1 hour ago, midas said:

" It is after all Kim who'd be in for the surprise. "

 

The arrogance and cockiness is so funny

he's had 50 years to prepare for this and the USA hardly has an exemplary record of winning wars

Ground forces of the All Volunteer Force have been a national embarrassment so you won't get any argument from over here.

In Iraq for instance Army and Marines have been running Operation Desert Disaster from 1991 to the present. In Afghanistan Army and Marines have been running the ground conflict as if they were Burger King, i.e., "Have it Your Way."

USAF and USN have conversely been awesome. The navy itself does just fine when it is not banging into other ships while trying to accomplish the ancient art and skill of navigating from point A to point B. On the vast ocean.

I served voluntarily during conscription and during the Vietnam War although I had the brains not to go to Vietnam. So I'll leave the accounting for the All Volunteer Failage to its veterans and active duty personnel here who might want to speak to the challenges presented by the armed forces of NK and also of the CCP-PRC. I'll throw in Russia too for a good measure.

AVF is anyway too small a force that is drawn from too narrow a demographic to win a major land war anywhere. I'd like to think nonetheless the AFIK and in Japan are up to the mission there. The one thingy we do know is that the key to keeping the AVF from getting in over its boots is to avoid putting 'em in the deserts in Asia. Korea the peninsula is more suited to the new Pentagon post-Afghanistan doctrines of air-sea battle with ground forces standing by. The best orders we can give to our ground forces is don't do anything, just stand there. Hurry up and wait is another good way to put it.