8ender said:
I mean, in the past dictatorships are resolved naturally and by the people. .
Naturally? At the beginning of the 20th century, the number of democracies that existed in the entire world could be counted on 1 hand. In world history, that number fit on two hands.
That means for most of recorded history, people were unable to overthrow tyrants, kings, or emperors. The only time governments changed was because of death of the ruler, assassination, being conquered by a neighboring state, or a military junta.
Even in the 20th century, this was true, and revolution by the people was the rare exception, not the rule. Most of the new democracies in this world were set up by colonialists after they abandoned their colonies, they were not revolutions against tyrants.
Of those "people's revolutions" that overthrew tyrants this century, they succeeded against governments that did not have Orwellian police state apparatus, or against governments that were crumbling anyway.
The idea that the average Iraqis or North Koreans for that matter could "rise up" is quite ludicrous. You can't "rise up" against a Stalin-type tyrant, because he will commit genocide to put down the rebellion and popular uprising.
Anti-guerilla technique is quite simple: You simply kill or deport *EVERYONE* in a city that is rebelling, instead of trying to find guerillas.
If you're trying to extrapolate the French or Communist revolutions to the 21st century, forget it. Modern weapons and technologies makes it far easier to repress. It's getting harder to rise against tyrants, not easier. And today's tyrants have the hindsight of history. Saddam learned from Stalin. Stalin ruled by fear. Saddam rules with the carrot and the stick.
