USA: anti Iraq war songs by heavy metal bands

Bush and Iraq war, cartoon

Associated Press in the USA reports:

Heavy Metal Becoming Increasingly Political

As genre nears 30, social commentary weaves its way among power chords

SAN FRANCISCO (MSNBC) – Heavy metal singer Chris Barnes didnt know what people would think of Amerika the Brutal, an anti-war song he wrote after his cousin deployed to Iraq in 2003.

He heard a number of complaints but also received supportive e-mails from American troops in the war zone.

It kind of sent a shiver up my spine because those are the guys I didnt want to offend by sounding anti-war, said Barnes, vocalist for the death metal band Six Feet Under.

Other metal bands are finding similar inspiration.

Lamb of God‘s albums criticize American foreign policy.

Australian anti war band The Molotov: here.

Anti war NYC punk rock by Outernational: here.

Anti Iraq war songs by Burt Bacharach: here.

Iraq: another ten US soldiers die: here.

8 thoughts on “USA: anti Iraq war songs by heavy metal bands

  1. Fun, fun, fun till Daddy took the Iraq war away*
    Posted by: “hapi22” robinsegg
    Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:25 am (PST)
    Here’s all you need to know to talk to friends and family about the Iraq
    war, before they vote.

    For Bush, the day of reckoning is at hand. After years of
    talking tough, smearing war opponents as appeasers and
    demanding “total victory,” he must confront the fact that his
    Iraq war has been a catastrophic failure. Terror attacks are
    up, American casualties are soaring near record levels, and a
    credible study claims that at least several hundred thousand
    Iraqis have died as a result of the war, demolishing whatever
    moral rationale it had.

    In the early days of the Iraq war, Bush often said that his presidency
    would be judged by the Iraq war. Of course, at that point, he foresaw
    victory, not the catastrophe the war in Iraq has become, for us, the
    Iraqi people and the world.

    So, I say: Let’s take Bush up on his challenge and judge him and his
    administration by the Iraq war.

    And, if those of the “religious right” have any sense, they will sit out
    this election. They cannot possibly think there is ANY moral grounding
    to this president or his Republican cohorts in Congress.


    *Fun, fun, fun till Daddy took the Iraq war away*

    Bush’s Iraq disaster is taking the GOP down, and his father’s old pal
    James Baker is about to tell him what to do.

    by Gary Kamiya
    Oct. 17, 2006

    In perhaps the strangest vindication of that old ’60s chestnut “The
    personal is the political,” the fate of America’s Iraq adventure may
    hinge on whether George W. Bush can handle being taken to the woodshed
    by an emissary of his old man.

    For Bush, the day of reckoning is at hand. After years of talking tough,
    smearing war opponents as appeasers and demanding “total victory,” he
    must confront the fact that his Iraq war has been a catastrophic
    failure. Terror attacks are up, American casualties are soaring near
    record levels, and a credible study claims that at least several hundred
    thousand Iraqis have died as a result of the war, demolishing whatever
    moral rationale it had.

    Of more immediate concern to Bush, Americans have turned against the
    Iraq war so strongly that the issue now threatens to take down Bush’s
    party, not just in the midterms but in 2008 as well. After a brief
    uptick in the polls driven by a major GOP “war on terror” P.R. campaign
    in September, Bush’s ratings have again dropped into the low 30s, and
    with the Republicans reeling from the Mark Foley scandal and no hope on
    Iraq’s bloody horizon, they will probably continue to fall. The
    Democrats look increasingly likely to take back the House, and perhaps
    the Senate too.

    The country is at a tipping point, which could be described as the
    moment when even those Americans who get all their information from Fox
    News abandon Bush’s sinking ship. GOP leaders know that if the U.S. is
    still bogged down in Iraq in 2008, their chances of capturing the
    presidency will be severely lessened. Senior GOP leaders like John
    Warner are firing warning shots across Bush’s bow. He is under
    increasing pressure to do something — anything — to stop the bleeding.

    But Bush, declaring that nothing less than the freedom of the world is
    at stake, has continued to insist that only a total victory in Iraq is

    [NOTE FROM ME: What some (such as Chris Matthews) see as Bush
    being “resolute,”: rational people see as infantile
    stubbornness. ]

    In a speech on Sept. 4, he said, “we’ll accept nothing less than
    complete victory … We’re on the offensive, and we will not rest, we
    will not retreat, and we will not withdraw from the fight, until this
    threat to civilization has been removed.” On Monday, he assured Iraqi
    Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki that he will not pull U.S. troops out of
    the country.

    The Republican Party brain trust, such as it is, desperately needs to
    find a way to talk Bush off the ledge, pry him away from his neocon
    delusions and Darth Cheney, and persuade him to cut his losses. But how?

    Enter James Baker, GOP wise man and old Bush family counselor. Baker,
    who served as the elder Bush’s secretary of state and secretary of
    treasury, is a consummate fix-it man, a kind of cross between Tom Hagen,
    Michael Corleone’s consigliere in “The Godfather,” and Mr. Wolf, the
    hipster cleanup dude in “Pulp Fiction.” It was Baker who pulled Bush’s
    chestnuts out of the fire after the 2000 elections, when he appeared on
    television to declaim, with the icy authority of a junta colonel, that
    “the votes have been counted again and again.”

    Now Baker has put on his bipartisan hat to co-head the Iraq Study Group,
    a bipartisan commission of foreign-policy experts that was created by
    Congress in March, with Bush’s approval, to look for new solutions to
    the Iraq mess. The commission is not releasing its report until after
    the November elections, implausibly claiming that it doesn’t want to
    politicize them. But a leak campaign to the media has made it pretty
    clear what the report is going to say — and it is not going to be music
    to Bush’s ears.

    Baker’s report, according to reports in the New York Sun and the Sunday
    Times, will rule out the possibility of “victory” in Iraq. Instead, it
    will recommend that the U.S. either simply withdraw or try to cut some
    kind of deal with the insurgents that could provide a modicum of
    security and stability in the country. The United States should abandon
    dreams of democracy. Instead, it should search for anything that will
    minimize the damage — whether installing a strongman or a junta, or
    splitting the country into three parts. It should negotiate with Iraq’s
    neighbors, including Iran and Syria. Left unspoken is the obvious larger
    point: The U.S. mission has failed, and once we do everything we can to
    prevent Iraq from descending into a hellish civil war, we should get

    For Bush, the Baker report will be about as welcome as an invitation to
    attend a two-week Earth First teach-in in Berkeley. Following these
    recommendations would mean changing his policy in radical and
    humiliating ways. No matter how he tries to spin it, pulling U.S. troops
    out when Iraq is still in meltdown will make his policy
    indistinguishable from the one proposed by Democrats — and which he,
    Cheney and Rumsfeld have been virulently denouncing as appeasement and
    surrender to evildoers. Having just claimed that the war in Iraq is “the
    calling of our generation” and the equivalent of World War II, it’s
    going to be hard for Bush to suddenly say, “Never mind!”

    [NOTE FROM ME: A historical note. At the moment America was
    dragged into WWII, the two mightiest military machines on the
    face of the Earth were the German and the Japanese. It may be
    difficult for young people to grasp the reality that America,
    on Dec. 7, 1941, had a military that was not much more than a
    National Guard. It took FDR less time to turn this country
    into a industrial war-making machine and gear up the military
    to beat the Germans and the Japanese than it has taken Bush,
    Cheney and Rumsfeld — with the mightiest military the world
    has ever known — to beat some insurgents in Iraq and
    Afghanistan. Which they haven’t even managed to do. In neither
    Iraq nor Afghanistan, is there even a national army facing us,
    just a bunch of self-organized insurgents. Shame on Bush,
    Cheney and Rumsfeld … they are all bluster and no brains.]

    Even worse, there is no guarantee that any of these new tactics would
    work — in fact, they could easily make things even worse.

    In short, Baker’s report will be a heaping plate of crow. The big
    question is: Will Bush be able to bring himself to eat it — especially
    since it’s being served up by an emissary of his father?

    Baker may have saved Bush after the Florida debacle, but in every other
    way he represents the clammy and unwelcome hand of Bush’s dad, also
    known as 41 (a reference to his being the 41st president). Baker is not
    just close to Bush senior, he shares his approach to foreign policy —
    one that the younger Bush, aka 43, has completely rejected. Baker, like
    his old boss, is a so-called realist, who regards 43’s neoconservative
    messianism about “transforming the Middle East” as dangerously
    delusional. Baker strongly opposed George W. Bush’s war on Iraq, and
    clearly believes that 43’s neoconservative Mideast policy, with its
    overwhelmingly pro-Israeli tilt and its hard line toward Iran and Syria,
    is misguided. In 1992, Baker delivered one of the most stinging rebukes
    ever given to Israel by any U.S. administration, telling Yitzhak Shamir
    that the United States would not honor $10 billion in loan guarantees
    unless Israel stopped building settlements in the occupied territories.

    Although 41 has quite properly refused to criticize his son, it is clear
    that he shares Baker’s views of the Iraq war and 43’s Mideast policies.
    In his new book, “State of Denial,” Bob Woodward quotes Barbara Bush as
    saying of the impending war, “Well, his father is certainly worried and
    is losing sleep over it.” But according to Woodward, the father did not
    want to butt in. When Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador to the United
    States, asked Bush why he didn’t talk to his son about his concerns, he
    replied, “I had my turn. It is his turn now. I just have to stay off the

    For his part, the younger Bush has kept his father at arm’s length. In
    his 2004 book “Plan of Attack,” Woodward asked Bush whether he had ever
    asked his father, whose decades of foreign policy expertise dwarfed his
    own blank résumé, for advice about the war. Bush replied he hadn’t,
    saying — frighteningly — that the Iraq war was not like Gulf War I,
    but “is part of a larger obligation that came to be on Sept. the 11th,
    2001.” He then added the now-famous quote, “You know, he is the wrong
    father to appeal to in terms of strength. There is a higher father that
    I appeal to.” (In the same conversation, Bush said of the war, “I
    haven’t suffered doubts.”) In “State of Denial,” Woodward quotes Sen.
    John McCain as saying of Bush, “One time he said, ‘I don’t want to be
    like my father. I want to be like Ronald Reagan.'”

    One could speculate endlessly about the relationship between the two
    Bushes. Woodward presents it as loving but oddly constrained. It is
    reasonable to believe that 43, whose nepotistic, crony-assisted career
    until he became president was far from illustrious, felt that he needed
    to strike out on a new path to be his own man and prove his worth. (The
    legendary investigative reporter Seymour Hersh mockingly calls 43 a
    “rebel with a bedtime.”) Bush’s well-documented lack of intellectual
    curiosity also probably played a role in his lack of interest in
    communicating with his father: If you already know the answer, are in
    touch with the higher father, don’t have any doubts, and don’t want to
    think about alternatives, why bother? Whatever the reasons, Bush has
    rejected his father’s moderation in order to strike out on a radical new

    This is true of many areas, but perhaps most strikingly so of Bush’s
    Middle East policies. As Ron Suskind reports in “The Price of Loyalty,”
    his book about Paul O’Neill’s ill-fated tenure as Bush’s treasury
    secretary, at the very first meeting of his National Security Council,
    on Jan. 30, 2001, just 10 days after his inauguration, Bush announced,
    “We’re going to correct the imbalances of the previous administration on
    the Mideast conflict. We’re going to tilt it back toward Israel.” When
    Secretary of State Colin Powell warned that abandoning attempts to be
    evenhanded and simply unleashing Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon
    could have dire consequences, especially for the Palestinians, Bush
    replied, “Sometimes a show of strength by one side can really clarify

    Bush has followed that philosophy not just in the Israeli-Palestinian
    crisis but also in Iraq. The Iraq war was driven by the neoconservative
    belief that 9/11 proved that the status quo was no longer acceptable,
    and the way to change the region was to pound Arab evildoers until they
    saw the error of their ways. It didn’t matter which Arab evildoer was
    being pounded — any one would do, and Saddam was convenient. This credo
    was summed up by Bush’s close advisor Henry Kissinger, who according to
    Woodward told Bush’s speechwriter, “We need to humiliate them.”

    The verdict on a war based on that bizarre ideology is now in — and
    Baker is about to deliver it. It cannot be pleasant for George W. Bush
    to be told that his “lower” father really did know best.

    Will Bush listen to Baker, take his political punishment and begin the
    agonizing process of winding down the Iraq war? At his press conference
    last week, Bush was told that Baker had said a change in strategy might
    be needed, and was asked if he would be willing to change. Bush said,
    “We’re constantly changing tactics to achieve a strategic goal. Our
    strategic goal is a country which can defend itself, sustain itself and
    govern itself.”

    The problem is, what Baker is likely to recommend goes far beyond mere
    tactics. And even the strategic goal of a stable Iraq may simply not be
    attainable — Iraq may no longer be salvageable. If there was any
    obvious way to sugarcoat Baker’s proposals so as to make them seem less
    like a surrender and more like a tactical adjustment, Bush would be more
    likely to embrace them. After all, Bush has made substantial policy
    shifts before and gotten away with it. No one was outraged, for example,
    when he reached out to the Sunni insurgents whom he had denounced just
    months before as terrorists. But this change would be an order of
    magnitude bigger, and there’s no way to spin it. It would amount to an
    admission that the entire war had been a mistake. There is nothing in
    Bush’s history to suggest he is capable of making such an admission.

    On the other hand, Bush has a powerful incentive to embrace Baker’s
    plan: politics. As Robert Dreyfuss points out in The Washington Monthly,
    “If — and it’s a very big if — Baker can forge a consensus plan on
    what to do about Iraq among the bigwigs on his commission, many of them
    leading foreign-policy figures in the Democratic Party, then the 2008
    Democratic presidential nominee — whoever he (or she) is — will have a
    hard time dismissing the plan. And if the GOP nominee also embraces the
    plan, then the Iraq war would largely be off the table as a defining
    issue of the 2008 race — a potentially huge advantage for Republicans.”

    It’s hard to believe that Bush, who is nothing if not a shrewd and
    cutthroat politician, doesn’t want to take Iraq off the table. Of course
    he would take a big short-term hit for cutting and running, but
    declaring victory and getting out is a time-honored political move, and
    Bush might get away with it.

    But this may be bigger than politics. Beyond the Oedipal dimension, Bush
    has staked his entire presidency on this war, and he really seems to be
    utterly convinced of the righteousness of his cause. According to
    Woodward, he and his neocon brain trust see the battle against Islamic
    extremism lasting two generations, and he believes it is his sacred duty
    to stand and fight.

    Baker’s report will be an irresistible force, colliding with the
    immovable object that is George W. Bush. Something will have to give.
    But what?

    Read this at:


  2. Pingback: German heavy metal rock and politics | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  3. Pingback: German army propaganda at heavy metal concert | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  4. Pingback: Pro-refugee rock music in England | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  5. Pingback: Motörhead rock singer Lemmy dies | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  6. Pingback:, of world’s richest man, treats workers like shit | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  7. Pingback: 96-year-old Holocaust survivor sings heavy metal rock | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  8. Pingback: Indonesian Muslim girls play heavy metal rock | Dear Kitty. Some blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.