Why is the takedown of a dictatorial regime considered agression when the vast majority of the residents want to get rid of the dictator?

Saddam surrendered to American forces, not captured. He new what his fate would be if he was captured by Iraqis. Now they are squabbling in Iraq about where he is to be executed.

At the risk of being ridiculed, on the day that Sadam was found I said that as long as he is alive, the possibility exists that he might come back in to power.

http://www.cpa-iraq.org/pressreleases/20040216_Arabs_Saddam.html

Dr. Osama Al-Ghazali Harb, the editor in chief of the Egyptian quarterly Al-Siyassa Al-Dawliya magazine and board member and advisor to the Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies, published a column in the most recent issue of Al-Siyassa Al-Dawliya. The article praised the capture of Saddam Hussein and denounced Arabs and Muslims who lament it and propagate conspiracy theories surrounding it. The following are excerpts from the article, as it appeared in the original in English:

'Saddam Surrendered in this Docile Manner Because He Knew His Captors Were Americans'

"The discovery of Saddam Hussein, the arrogant, cruel, and luxury-loving leader, hiding in an underground hole - bringing to mind the tale of the Thieves of Baghdad - and his surrender to his captors in a docile and cowardly fashion, was indeed something of a farce. But, the 'Mother of all Farces,' to borrow Saddam's famous idiom, is that Arabs and Muslims fail to grasp the true implications of the rise, and fall, of Saddam Hussein.

"Saddam Hussein is a true example of the despotic leader as described by the great Arab intellectual Abdel-Rahman Al-Kawakbi in his famous treatise 'The Nature of Despotism' more than one hundred years ago: 'Once seated on his throne ... the despot regards himself as a man who has become a God... The despot is no more than a traitor and a coward who needs to be surrounded by a band of thugs to aid and protect him.'

"There is no doubt Saddam knew what his fate would be if captured by the Iraqis; he would have been killed and mutilated as other previous Iraqi leaders, less brutal than him, were. In this instance, Saddam might have preferred suicide - not out of honor, but in fear of torture and violent death. It is most likely that Saddam surrendered in this docile manner because he knew his captors were Americans...

"Saddam's viciousness towards his own people was matched only by his inability to stand up to foreign powers - despite what his propaganda apparatus maintained. His arrogance to the Arabs, meanwhile, was revealed by his refusal to heed any advice from Arab leaders. His disregard for the repeated pleas from President Mubarak, before the war in Kuwait and again before the invasion of Iraq, are a case in point, as was the lackluster reception extended to Arab emissaries to Baghdad during this last crisis."


"Yet the farce of Saddam's surrender is nothing compared to the ridiculous interpretations of this event circulating among Arabs and Muslims. The first of these interpretations regards the manner of Saddam's capture as a deliberate and unprecedented insult to all Arabs and Muslims. This point of view implies that Saddam is in some form a symbol of Arabs and Muslims, a 'legitimate' leader, whose actions were a true reflection of the aims and aspirations of Iraq and the Arab world. This cannot be further from the truth. Saddam never had any real legitimacy - his decisions and policies were in flat contradiction to Iraqi, Arab, and Islamic interests. Saddam's arrest - the arrest of any criminal, anywhere - is neither an insult nor a humiliation, but a sign of civility and respect for the law.