[scaeagles]

I agree with that to a point, GD, but not wholely.

I think a group of oppressed people is not nearly as able to overthrow an oppressive government as they once were. Methods and technology have changed drastically.

The US revolution was a success with only about 20% of the populace wanting to fight for independence. The British did not have huge technological (in terms of military hardware) advantages, and the colonists were well fed and armed with basically the same weapons as the Biritish.

When you look at somewhere like a Somalia, where hundreds of thousands of people are starving under oppressive warlords, why are they starving? It isn't because there is no food available. It is because the warlords who control the trucks and roads will not allow food to get to the starving people. If you are malnourished, how can you fight?

I could say the same for Rwanda or any other number of African nations.

It is possible, if military leaders under a dictator go against him, for a revolution to take hold. However, in such an example, the military leader overthrowing one dictator typical just wants all the power for himself and becomes a dictator himself.

With what would Iraqis have risen up? The fear and intimidation was clear. I know if I were an Iraqi man, knowing that even speaking ill about my government would result not in my torture, but in the torture and imprisonment of my family, my little girls, I'm keeping my mouth shut. (By the way - props to some of the founding fathers, many of whom faced just that for their families who were in England. The general populace who were fighting, though, did not face that in mass.)