Is an iron fist sometimes necessary?

Question

When Yugoslavia broke up there was instant bloodshed. When Iraq was broken by the US invasion the same thins happened.
These are just two examples where it would seem that a tyrranical power was for the peoples' own good.
Can a tyrranical power in such circumstances be justified?

I am not talking from perspective of an American. I am talking from the perspective of such countries that harbour historical hostilities within themselves, either ethnic or religious. and such countries that are very poor and suffer from armed banditry, and countries that have never advanced from serfdom (slavery) to freedom.
Such countries that are uneducated and would not know what to do with democracy even if they got it.

Answer 1

I don´t think so. What you need is democratic discipline or, in short, to learn how to leave, understand and respect other people.
Take an example, the "answers". If you read a lot of them, you will find a few (to much for my liking) that show some sympathy for iron fists.
But the World is complex. Some days ago I read an answer from a Chinese girl who said that they fear 2 tings, foreign intervention and internal chaos. She was making a choice, the iron fist instead of chaos.

Answer 2

No or we in the Uk would have given in to Hitler and the United States would be under Japanese control. You could have us all driving Mercedes and BMW's and the American's driving Honda and Suzuki! No, the war criminals have to be brought to justice. But there are different ways of doing it. When Britain was at war with Argentina over the Falklands - servicemen on both sides died. But we didn't attack innocent Argentinian people. In World war II - Churchill had a choice, bomb synthetic oil facilities and bring the war to an end or bomb Berlin. He chose Berlin. His hate, killed innocent people. Saddam should have been killed by an assasins bullet. Serbia should have been attacked sooner and it's supply lines cut. We also need to educate better. The BBC world service has tried and succeeded for many years. But the "American dream" pollutes the world - not just adding to global warming - but pollutes with pornography and other undesirable filth. China has been condemned for censoring the Internet - some of it needs censoring. It is time for an XXX suffix - for the porn Industry - it is overdue. The glorification of some things like illegal drugs, perverted sexual acts, should possibilly be banned by the UN - when control of the Internet is finally passed to the UN from the US military.

Answer 3

While the citizens of a country might believe that an iron fist is necessary to help quell any type of rebellion or bloodshed, in the long run, the citizens lose out because the people that come in power will eventually take your freedoms away from you. All we have to do look at the 20th century to see that an iron fist creates more problems than it solves (Nazi Germany, Italy, Japan for example).

Answer 4

The only time it is necessary to rule wth an iron fist is when the ruler is right . This is very rare, such as when Tipto was in power. It has not been seen again like that.

Most dictators use iron fists in order to loot the nation. All African dictators except Nyerere are in this category.

Answer 5

The two examples you sited were countries created by outsiders imposing arbitrary borders. The citizens of these countries could only be held together by irons fists because they had little in common -- so yes. The question of it being for the peoples own good and the justification of tyrannical power is debatable and it depends on who you ask and their point of view.

From the standpoint of the United States, a strong non-secular leader in Iraq was good for containment of radical Islam and balance of power in the region. From Turkey's point of view, this was true as well. They feel threat of a Kurdish state in the north.

Some of the results of the war in Iraq have been death of tens of thousands of Iraqi women and children; serious injuries of other tens of thousands of Iraqis; bombing and destruction of buildings, roads, hospitals; disruption of oil infrastructure; displacement of hundreds of thousands of citizens fleeing for safety. And this is just a start. It seems the people to ask about the potential trade-off are Iraqis. My guess is a resounding NO.

Answer 6

NO-an iron fist is NOT sometimes necessary. You're talking from the prospective of this country, the US. Totalitarianism would not work here. It is NOT for the peoples own good-it is for the leader and the leader alone. People here need their freedom and the feeling that they can control their own lives. So in both cases you raised, bloodshed happened because of complete control over the people and the power of the leader. This is NOT good. I think people really want to have control over their own lives. They don't want a leader, especially a murderous one, to control them. They want a peaceful life where they can work and have their family and exist.

Answer 7

depends where it comes from. An iron fist from some other power never wins many friends. Look at it this way would you be throwing candy and roses at Iraq soldiers if they bombed and destroyed the usa and was in the process of setting up their chosen puppetts for a government.

Answer 8

Who knows? It is possible that years from now the Moslems in this country will want to break away from the indigenou Brits. Perhaps Enoch Powell had some insight as to the direction countries are going.

Answer 9

Never. The US has always been a free country. When the US was broken up, during the Civil War, it was still a free country. The US got through the war and has prospered, without a tyrant as head of the government.

Answer 10

Bring back the days of the Raj! Slap those fuzzie-wuzzies and hand out those bibles! But do you remember Nazi Germany took over a few nations as they ( the indigenous inhabitants) had no better idea as to how to run their own countries?