Photos Fwd: Protest against visit of South Korean President LEE in Berlin/Germany

* Photos and captions by Benjamin Hiller, forwarded on May 9, 2011

'Protest against visit of South Korean President LEE in Berlin/Germany (Demotix)
This is just in:

http://www.demotix.com/news/685110/protest-against-visit-president-lee-south-korea-germany '
----------
Benjamin Hiller
http://www.benjamin-hiller.com/
http://www.freelens.com/benjamin-hiller
http://www.lightstalkers.org/benjaminhiller



Protesters in front of the Palace Bellevue where President LEE Myung-Bak arrived.


A female protester holds a painting with the face of President LEE Myung-Bak and the slogan "He always lies". In the background is the Bellevue Palace where LEE Myung-Bak arrived.

Protesters hold signs with slogans against the nuclear power policy of South Korea as well as against the "Four River Dam" project.
A sign which shows the current (yellow) and planned (red) nuclear power plants in South Korea. Almost all are situated near the coast line.
Protesters hold a banner in front of the Palace Bellevue with slogans against the nuclear power policy of South Korea as well as against the "Four River Dam" project.

Video and Text Fwd: GERMANS PROTEST NUCLEAR POWER

Organizing Notes
Sunday, March 27, 2011
GERMANS PROTEST NUCLEAR POWER




Tens of thousands of Germans took to the streets Saturday to protest against nuclear power. Under the banner "Fukushima means: no more nuclear power stations," marches took place in Hamburg, Cologne, Munich and capital Berlin, ahead of the vote in wealthy Baden-Wuerttemberg Sunday, where the nuclear issue was set to play a key role. In Berlin alone, police said the "organisers' aim of getting 50,000 would be basically achieved."

On Sunday the Associated Press reported:

German chancellor Angela Merkel's conservatives have suffered a historic defeat in a state ballot after almost six decades in power there, preliminary results showed Sunday, in an election that amounted to a referendum on the party's stance on nuclear power.

The opposition anti-nuclear Greens doubled their voter share in Baden-Wuerttemberg state and seemed poised to win their first-ever state governorship, according to preliminary results released by the state electoral commission.

"We have secured what amounts to a historic electoral victory," the Greens' leader Winfried Kretschmann told party members in Stuttgart.

The Greens secured 24.2 percent of the vote, with the center-left Social Democrats down 2 percentage points at 23.1 percent. That secures them a narrow lead to form a coalition government with a combined 71 seats in the state legislature, the results showed.

See more video from Germany here

Video Fwd: NUKES ARE BAD NEWS

Bruce Gagnon's Organizing Notes
NUKES ARE BAD NEWS
Thursday, January 20, 2011



Thousands of angry protesters delayed a shipment of nuclear waste arriving at a dumping site in Germany last November.

Authorities are considering using the site for long-term nuclear waste storage, but anti-nuclear campaigners say alarming cancer statistics at a site in the same region should serve as a warning.

Video Fwd: [Organizing Notes] A TIP OF THE HAT TO GERMAN ANTI-NUKE MOVEMENT 독일 반핵 운동에 경의를 표함

Bruce Gagnon blog
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
A TIP OF THE HAT TO GERMAN ANTI-NUKE MOVEMENT

An inspiring protest! 독일 반핵 운동의 르네상스! 꼭 보셔용!



'Even though the train carrying nuclear waste has completed its journey the German anti-nuclear movement deserves great credit and recognition for their tremendous effort to slow the shipment. In doing so they have alerted the world to the issue and pumped life back into a sagging anti-nuclear power movement worldwide.

The German government had previously promised that they would move away from nuclear power but this shipment belies that pledge.

The resurrection of the German anti-nuclear movement, which was huge during the early 1980's and gave life to the Green Party, is a good sign for all of us.

This non-violent, yet determined movement in Germany, should be a reminder to all of us that the tides of resistance ebb and flow much like the oceans. Our job as activists is to keep building, even during the times of low tide, so that when the need arises the movements can spring to life again.'

Video Fwd: GERMAN ACTIVISTS TRY TO BLOCK NUCLEAR WASTE SHIPMENT 독일 활동가들, 핵폐기물 수송을 막으려 시도

From Bruce Gagnon blog
GERMAN ACTIVISTS TRY TO BLOCK NUCLEAR WASTE SHIPMENT
Nov. 8, 2010



'A forest in Germany has been turned into a struggle over nuclear power.

More than 17,000 policemen were used to keep a trainload of nuclear waste on the move to a storage site at Gorleben.

Protesters are doing everything they can to stop it, including trying to blockade the tracks.

Al Jazeera's Guy Henderson reports from Leitstade, Germany.'

Text Fwd: Senator Hutchison's analysis on overseas "forward deploying" military base construction

* Text Fwd from J. D. on July 14, 2010

Texas Insider
Hutchison: Military Construction Program Should be Fiscally Responsible Strategically Sound

VIDEO: Senator Hutchison’s Floor Speech on Military Construction.

Texas Insider Report: WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) delivered a speech on the U.S. Senate floor about the U.S. Department of Defense’s Military Construction program and its apparent strategy shift to expand overseas presence rather than increase primarily base troops on U.S. soil. Sen. Hutchison is concerned about the costs of this strategy shift and what that means for our American soldiers and their families and for the growing debt and deficits that are burdening American taxpayers.

A transcript of Sen. Hutchison’s remarks is available below after the video.

Floor Speech
Overseas Basing and Military Construction
U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
July 13, 2010

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about our Military Construction program and some concerns that I have about an apparent shift in strategy, what that means for our American soldiers and their families, and for the growing debt and deficits that we are seeing by the taxpayers in this country.

Without question, our Military Construction program should be both fiscally responsible and driven by the future security posture of U.S. forces. Dating back to the end of the Cold War, the U.S. military determined that our Armed Forces would be best trained and equipped for service when stationed at installations on U.S. soil. Our military adopted a “force projection” strategy that allows our U.S. stationed service men and women to deploy from home, rather than being based primarily overseas.

This Congress has been very supportive of the Army’s transformation to a more modular and expeditionary force structure, allowing more troops to be stationed in the United States. And we have done military construction to accommodate those troops coming back. In 2005, the Overseas Basing Commission reaffirmed the force projection strategy. It applauded the vision behind the Pentagon’s efforts to transform the military and re-station tens of thousands of military personnel back on U.S. soil. Our own base closing commission provided for the building of our military construction in America so that those troops coming back would have the hosing and training facilities to accommodate them and their families. So the Pentagon’s strategy, endorsed by the Overseas Basing Commission, has guided the way Congress directs resources and funding for Military Construction facilities.

We’ve invested more than $14 billion to build housing, stationing, training, and deployment capacities at major military installations in the United States. And we have proven we can best deploy from the United States – and we can do it more cost-effectively.

Despite these taxpayer-backed investments, the Pentagon’s current MILCON program is shifting military construction projects, military forces, and taxpayer dollars overseas. Strategically, this would set in motion a worldwide transformation of U.S. basing that would actually expand our overseas presence. And this at a time when the aid given to American efforts in the War on Terror is, with a few exceptions, not impressive.

Finally, DOD is pursuing expensive and in some cases duplicative military construction projects in Europe, Korea, and Guam without demonstrating adequate cost efficiencies or projected future costs. This shift in global posture fundamentally disconnects with stateside basing capabilities and reverses the Overseas Basing Commission’s recommendations that were passed by Congress.

Europe

In Germany, massive plans are underway to move U.S. Army Headquarters from Heidelberg to Wiesbaden. I question this move because European and African Commands already have substantial infrastructure in Stuttgart, where efficiencies would be available. And the Government Accountability Office does not believe the Army will achieve any cost-savings.

Not only would these huge and costly projects create thousands of foreign jobs, but they would require continuous taxpayer funding to maintain facilities and training capabilities.

The United States has averaged spending $278 million per year in Germany in the last 5 years, but the Department of Defense now plans to raise that spending to $750 million per year. It costs nearly 15 percent less to build in the United States than to build in Germany. And while American taxpayers have invested $1.4 billion in German infrastructure from 2006 to 2010, Germany’s contribution has averaged $20 million per year – or less than 10 percent.

This is a poor taxpayer investment considering the serious limitations to U.S. military training and deployment capabilities overseas. It would also create duplicative headquarters at several locations in Germany. Our troops must have access to training areas where they can maneuver freely, conduct live-fire exercises, and work with night-vision devices. Many overseas locations prohibit such intensive training. Others allow only certain aspects of the training to be done under closely monitored circumstances. These limitations hinder the readiness of our troops, while taxing our citizens more.

Deployment impediments also exist in Europe. During times of peace and war, our troops face restrictions traveling through many countries surrounding Germany. In 2003, deploying American forces from Germany into Iraq was complicated when several European countries denied U.S. troops access to air or ground routes. Merely having our troops forward-deployed is no guarantee that they will be available when and where we need them.

Korea

DOD is also planning to spend millions to build deployment facilities in Korea. The Pentagon is proposing to shift one-year deployments for troops alone to three-year tours that include their families. This change would expand U.S. presence in Korea from 30,000 service personnel to approximately 84,000, counting dependents.

Substantial taxpayer funding would be required to build adequate housing, schools, hospitals, fitness centers, childcare facilities, commissaries, and more. We have asked for the numbers that would be projected for this. The Department has not given us any numbers nor any projections on the costs of adding 50,000 more people into Korea than we now have.

Investing these resources into Korea makes no sense when we are already building up infrastructure and deployment capabilities at U.S. bases, where amenities to support military families are well-established.

Guam

Plans to shift Marines currently stationed in Japan to the tiny island of Guam are also problematic. There are significant environmental concerns with trying to accommodate such a large number of military personnel in such a small space – and the island lacks sufficient existing infrastructure.

In addition to that, the timeline for transitioning Marines stationed in Japan is implausible and the costs are staggering. They are now estimated at $16 billion. With these considerable barriers, better basing alternatives should be explored. Again, we have asked the Department to look into this, to give alternatives – we have suggested alternatives. We have received nothing back,

The Department of Defense has indicated that this new military construction program is intended to “build partnership capacity.” Some argue that U.S. presence overseas provides assurance to our allies and deterrence to our adversaries. History has shown that this is not always the case.

Basing American military personnel at key locations in Europe did not deter the Russians from conducting military operations against Georgia in 2008. Even with our 30,000 troops in Korea, North Korea did not hesitate to attack a South Korean naval vessel in May of this year. And let’s look at what the partnership agreements that we are seeking have given us so far. We are in a War on Terror in which the United States has 78,000 troops. Germany has 4,350. The United Kingdom has double what Germany has. So the UK, which has a small population, has more troops by double than Germany, yet we are looking at all of this build-up in Germany for building partnership capacity.

Germany contributes 4 percent of NATO troops to Afghanistan, but they have strict rules of engagement that include not going on offense and restrictions on night operations.

If we are going to do so much on our own, does it make sense for the American taxpayer to be building what would be about a $1.5 billion more in Germany in facilities that we already have in the United States. Or if there needs to be more Army building in Germany, at least do it in Stuttgart where the Army already has a headquarters instead of an all new operation in Wiesbaden.

If the United States really wants to assure our allies and deter our enemies, we should do it with strong military capabilities and sound policy – not by keeping troops stationed overseas, not siphoning funds from equipment and arms and putting it into duplicative military construction.

Instead of breaking ground on military projects abroad and advancing the Department’s new goal of building “partnership capacity,” we should be building American infrastructure. We are carrying the heaviest load by far in the War on Terror, and we are carrying it for freedom loving people throughout the world. We need to build-up bases in our country, which we have already done, to accommodate the strategy since the Cold War, and yet we seem to be reversing that strategy. And I am asking why. I have asked the Department of Defense, I have asked the Secretary of Defense for answers and have not yet been able to receive anything that would show why we would make such a huge investment in their foreign bases with training constraints and deployment restraints when we could do the same thing at home and deploy our troops at will.

Military Construction Investment Should Reflect Today’s Strategy

Following World War II, the U.S. constructed bases in Europe to establish a strong presence as nations rebuilt. We stayed in Europe and placed bases in Korea to protect the interests of America and its allies during the Cold War. The world has changed, and with it, our nation’s military’s priorities must also change. Our military construction investment should reflect our strategic principles. It should meet the needs of military families. It should maximize the force flexibility of our modern military. And it should demonstrate the fiscal discipline that taxpayers rightly expect. I hope the Department of Defense will continue to build the foundation of our military right here on American soil.

Deficit Spending and Amendments

Secretary Gates has made fiscal discipline a priority at the Department of Defense. He has said we are going to cut defense spending. So this military construction plan is puzzling. I’m not sure if the military and the department heads are on the same wavelength. We are looking at a $1 billion of foreign construction that we do not need with capacity that we have already built in American. I am asking the Department of Defense to look at this and to make sure that we are in every way having a respect for the taxpayers and making sure that our military and our families have the support they need. I believe that can be done at home.

I will offer amendments to reduce the level of spending in overseas construction and possibly in administrative costs at the Department of Veterans Affairs budget that do not affect Veterans’ health care or benefits. There’s more at stake here than just our military strategy, for our economy, and for the American taxpayer.

Out-of-control spending is putting the short- and long-term fiscal health of the United States at risk. The national public debt hit an historic $13 trillion dollars. That was in May. This year, the federal government is borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar it spends, and it is spending 67 percent more than it brings in. In pursuit of its costly and damaging big government agenda, the Obama administration has increased the total public debt by $2 trillion in less than two years – an increase of 23 percent in 16 months.

If the spending continues at this rate, at the end of Obama’s first term, he will have added an additional $6 trillion to the public debt. If we go along with the request of the White House, $6 trillion more will be added to our debt in this term. This is irresponsible and unsustainable.

As the appropriations process moves forward, I intend to offer amendments to bring Military Construction back down to levels that are consistent with the Secretary of Defense’s own stated objective, which is to military spending.

I am going to offer amendments that I believe will be responsible, will protect our forces, and be better for our military families. And it will achieve the spending cuts that the Secretary has said he believes are necessary.

We need to make the tough decisions. I am offering a way forward. I am offering common sense cuts that will assure that we will be able to meet the needs of our military, the security of our military, the security of the American people, and the respect for this enormous deficit. We can cut back on this deficit with responsible spending.

Mr. President, I have outlined some of these concerns in today’s Politico, and I’d ask that my op-ed be submitted for the record.

Thank you, Mr. President. I very much appreciate the opportunity to lay out the strategy I am offering the Administration. I hope that we can come back to the strategy that has been adopted by Congress over the last ten years that would have American troops in America, that would created American jobs in military construction, that will save taxpayer dollars, and assure that when our troops go into harm’s way they will not be blocked by European countries that do not allow us to use airspace, or train tracks or the ground. We cannot afford that kind of luxury in this kind of environment.

[Photo Fwd] [Jeju] From Germany to Gangjeong

Gisela Koellner who visited Gangjeong during her trip in Korea in May with her husband sent the photo of Gangjeong the couple have taken there. Thanks very much, Gisela!

Gisela Koellner has visited Korea, invited by the church organizations in Korea and had the chance to visit the issues of four-river projects , Jeju naval base and cities of Gwangju etc. She became to know about Gangjeong villagers’ struggle against the Jeju naval base issue through Bruce Gagnon’s international petition against the Jeju naval base plan.

Below is her email to Korean friends. I forward here.
_______________________________________________________

Thank you from Germany

Dear friends in Korea,

We returned savely to Stuttgart, Germany, with lots of impressions and very positive memories of your country and all the meetings and exchanges we had with each one of you! We brought lots of informations and quite a big number of fotos, and during the next days and weeks and months in EMS I will try to make a maximum of use of it all!

Thank you to each one of you for all the help we had during our stay in Korea, for all meetings and translations, for all insights in Korean churches and culture, for all the friendship and openness we experienced in your country!

We very much hope our good contacts will continue. Greetings to all from my husband Guillermo and myself.

May God bless you all!

Your´s truly,

Gisela Koellner
EMS - Evangelisches Missionswerk in Südwestdeutschland e.V.
Association of Churches and Missions in South Western Germany
http://www.ems-online.org/

Text Fwd: Japan Focus:John Junkerman Reviews The Insular Empire: Making the Invisible Empire Visible

* Image source: Japan Focus(photo: The Insular Empire)
_____________________________________________________

* Text sent from Jean Downy and Martha Duenas

Japan Focus
Making the Invisible Empire Visible
Film Review by John Junkerman

Mention “The Insular Empire” to the average American, and they’d likely have no idea what you were talking about. They probably still wouldn’t get it if you gave them another clue: “America in the Mariana Islands.” These are the title and subtitle of a new film by Vanessa Warheit, which began screening on PBS earlier this year.

It is the singular misfortune of the residents of Guam and the Northern Marianas to have been born on tiny islands of great strategic value in the mid-Pacific Ocean. The consequence has been their colonial subordination for four centuries to a succession of empires: Spain, the United States, Germany, Japan, and, since the Pacific War, the US again.

A “colony” of the American “empire”? Of course, the US does not acknowledge that the “territory” of Guam and the “commonwealth” of the Northern Mariana Islands are colonies. But, as the film points out, the residents of these islands bear American passports yet have only token representation in the US Congress. They have the ‘right’ to fight in the US military (soldiers from Guam have died in Iraq and Afghanistan at a per capita rate four times as high as any US state), but they don’t have a vote in the election of the commander-in-chief. One third of Guam is controlled by the US military and the island is slated for a massive military buildup, but as a “non-self-governing territory,” the islanders have no say in the matter.

READ MORE

Reunification, NATO Expansion Revive German Global Combat Role

* StopNATO*
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1906570,00.html
Time Magazine
June 27, 2009

Will Germany's Army Ever Be Ready for Battle?
By Tristana Moore

-The German army as it stands today is a relatively young creation, born after a
period of demilitarization following the end of World War II. A defensive army,
the Bundeswehr has become increasingly engaged in international missions and is
coming under pressure to step up its involvement in out-and-out warfare.

-"The German public is still reluctant to accept a combat role for the
Bundeswehr," Henning Riecke, an analyst at the German Council on Foreign
Relations, tells TIME. "But Germany should become more active in Afghanistan and
allow troops to go into combat, if needed even in the south of the country. It's
time for Germany to be more flexible in Afghanistan."

-Since the 1990s, after reunification, German forces have become more involved
in military missions abroad....There are currently 247,000 soldiers enrolled in
the Bundeswehr and German troops are now serving all over the world, in places
such as Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia and Lebanon.


Berlin: On June 15, the German army's General Wolfgang Schneiderhan found
himself in front of an audience of politicians and senior officers defending
military policy — on sleeping bags.

Many German soldiers "are whingeing to high heaven," Schneiderhan said at a
reception thrown by the parliamentary army ombudsman, complaining about
everything from being sent on yet another overseas tour of duty to the
"unsuitable" sleeping bags they are given for their deployment in the Congo.
Then Schneiderhan did some complaining of his own, noting the tendency for his
officers to delegate blame, with no one taking responsibility for their actions.
"We can't guarantee an all-round, feel-good experience for our soldiers," he
said.
....

The German army as it stands today is a relatively young creation, born after a
period of demilitarization following the end of World War II. A defensive army,
the Bundeswehr has become increasingly engaged in international missions and is
coming under pressure to step up its involvement in out-and-out warfare....

Germany is the third biggest troop contributor to the NATO-led international
peacekeeping force there, with 3,700 German troops serving in Kabul and in
northern Afghanistan, around Mazar-e-Sharif, where Germany heads the northern
regional command. More German soldiers are now being sent to Afghanistan in the
run-up to the elections in August, bringing the total number to 4,200 by late
summer. There are also plans to send 300 more German troops to the country to
help support NATO's deployment of surveillance aircraft.

Germany's Afghan mission is governed by a parliamentary mandate that limits most
troops to peacekeeping and reconstruction efforts in the relatively peaceful
north of Afghanistan. Even so, at least 35 German soldiers have been killed in
Afghanistan since early 2002, most recently on Tuesday, when three died near the
northern town of Kunduz after their patrol came under fire. The mission is very
unpopular back home, but Germany has been feeling pressure from its NATO allies
to pull more of its weight and send troops to the south, the scene of fierce
battles with Taliban insurgents.

"The German public is still reluctant to accept a combat role for the
Bundeswehr," Henning Riecke, an analyst at the German Council on Foreign
Relations, tells TIME. "But Germany should become more active in Afghanistan and
allow troops to go into combat, if needed even in the south of the country. It's
time for Germany to be more flexible in Afghanistan."
....
The legacy of Germany's Nazi past has led to military limits being written into
the country's constitution. Germany was demilitarized after World War II ended
in 1945, and the process of remilitarization has only developed over time. The
Bundeswehr was formed in 1955, when West Germany joined NATO, but the
constitution held that the role of Germany's armed forces would be strictly
defensive. Initially, the German army's main job was to work with its NATO
allies to prevent any attack that might come from Warsaw Pact members.

According to Dieter Kruger, a military historian at the Institute for Military
History in Potsdam, it was only after France left NATO in 1966 that Germany's
military role became stronger. "In the past, there was no idea of deploying
German troops abroad, except in specific cases, like helping in natural
disasters," he says. "Up until the end of the Cold War, Germany had a
well-trained army, but it was more used to bureaucratic procedures."

Since the 1990s, after reunification, German forces have become more involved in
military missions abroad....There are currently 247,000 soldiers enrolled in the
Bundeswehr and German troops are now serving all over the world, in places such
as Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia and Lebanon.

But some say the Bundeswehr, which is a conscript army, is too bureaucratic and
ill-equipped to deal with the modern-day challenges of combat. "Germany's armed
forces are often overstretched. There are too many bases in Germany, too many
personnel and the equipment is often old-fashioned," says Riecke of the German
Council on Foreign Relations. "There is long-overdue reform under way to make
the Bundeswehr leaner. It should be easier to deploy forces quickly abroad," he
adds, referring to far-reaching plans to modernize the army's equipment and
scale back troop numbers.

In the meantime, General Schneiderhan may have to steel himself for more
complaints. U.S. President Barack Obama has pledged to beef up the U.S. military
presence in Afghanistan, but will he be able to persuade NATO allies, including
Germany, to increase their own efforts there? The German parliamentary troop
mandate that limits the army mostly to peacekeeping and reconstruction efforts
runs out in December, after the federal elections. When that happens, German
soldiers could find that uncomfortable sleeping bags are the least of their
problems.
===========================
Stop NATO

Germany-Based US Troops Test Advanced Rockets Near Korean DMZ

* informed in StopNATO*

* Image Source/ caption*
Same as the article below

'Seth Robson / S&S
A multiple launch rocket system crewed by soldiers from Battery A, 1st Battalion, 27th Field Artillery Regiment prepares to fire during training exercises at Rocket Valley, South Korea, on Thursday.

Seth Robson / S&S
A soldier from Headquarters Headquarters Battery, 2nd Infantry Division Artillery prepares to launch a weather balloon during Thursday’s training.'


http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=27848
Germany-based 1-27 rocketeers in South Korea to take on Rocket Valley By Seth Robson, Stars and Stripes European edition, Saturday, March 19, 2005

ROCKET VALLEY, South Korea — Germany-based rocketeers from Battery A, 1st Battalion, 27th Field Artillery Regiment trained in South Korea this week on the latest multiple launch rocket systems as part of the annual Reception, Staging Onward Movement and Integration exercise.

Thousands of U.S. troops, from both on and off the Peninsula, are participating in RSOI and another exercise, Foal Eagle, this month.

The Babenhausen, Germany-based 1-27 soldiers, who normally train on older M270 multiple launch rocket system (MLRS), arrived in South Korea two weeks ago and started training on the 2nd Infantry Division’s state-of-the-art M270A1 MLRS, said Battery A commander Capt. Will Daniel, 32, of Buckhannon, W.Va.

On Thursday, they fired the M270A1 for the first time at Rocket Valley, a training area near the Demilitarized Zone.

Each M270A1 launcher can fire up to 12 rockets in quick succession. The main advantage of the newer MLRS is its ability to move into position and fire more quickly than the M270, Daniel said.

“It is a matter of seconds, whereas the older models take two or three times as long,” he said.

Nearby, a tracked MLRS prepared to move along a muddy road in Rocket Valley — a steep tree-filled ravine with a small stream running down the middle.

The Grafenwöhr training area where 1-27 fires the MLRS in Germany has a couple of rolling hills, but it is flat compared to Rocket Valley, Daniel said.

“It doesn’t make a whole lot of difference. It is just a different firing solution,” he added.

Battery A fire direction controller Sgt. Michael Pulbrook, 26, of Los Angeles, relays commands to MLRS crews depending on the type of round required and the type of mission.

The launchers can shoot short-, medium- and long-range missiles. They can suppress enemy air defenses so helicopters can move into an area, do counter fire against enemy artillery units or go after targets of opportunity, he said.

Shortly after he spoke, the MLRS units moved into firing positions in the valley. When the command was given, the rocket tubes pointed skyward at about a 45-degree angle and spun to face their targets at the far end of the mist-shrouded valley. Suddenly three brightly glowing rockets streaked through the sky, leaving smoky white vapor trails in their wake.

The rocket shoot was the culmination of weeks of work for Battery A supply specialist Spc. Joey Correnti, 25, of Red Desert, Wyo., who arrived ahead of the unit and assembled the equipment, vehicles and field rations for more than 80 soldiers.

Correnti said troops in South Korea have a different attitude from GIs in Germany.

“The attitude is different because they have to be ready to go in a minute. We are a go in 72 hours to a week in Germany, but these guys would roll up the hill in an hour and a half and put rockets down range,” he said.

Video Fwd: ANTI-NATO PROTEST INSIDE GERMAN PARLIAMENT

* Video informed in *

http://space4peace.blogspot.com/2009/03/nato-protest-in-german-parliament.html
Saturday, March 28, 2009
ANTI-NATO PROTEST INSIDE GERMAN PARLIAMENT