who are the "they" in your second sentence? if the entire population bar none supports a different political system and are willing to give away some of their basic rights to empower that system, sure, go for it. that being said, these citizens shouldn't expect or demand to be treated according to a value system that isn't their own once their utopia starts falling apart. neither are they entitled to a new home once they set the old one of fire. it doesn't mean it cannot or shouldn't be provided, but it certainty isn't the duty of any 3rd party to be the one providing.
how often is it the case though, that the entire population of an autocratic country stand by their leader willingly? even in theory this suggestion is laughable for being overly idealistic. an opposition always exists, no matter what the political system is.
the question is how you treat that opposition. if the treatment includes things such as censorship, constant surveillance, confiscation of private property, abductions, interrogations, unjust imprisonments and finally death then i believe the line has been crossed. surely, as a fan of china, those measures must ring a bell.
in reality there are two "they"s: the oppressed and the oppressors. well, to be more precise three theys. the oppressors are relatively a small group at the top of the pyramid, a much larger group is the enablers who are fine with the measures mentioned above as long as they are left alone. "tell a joke about our supreme leader? no no, it wasn't me! don't hurt me, hurt that guy over there! he's not truthful enough in his worship of our god and savior".
if a peaceful ousting of the autocratic rule is possible, all the merrier. i have nothing against that. however, if it isn't, the least i would be concerned about is the lives of the oppressors or the enablers. the enablers don't mind forfeiting the lives of the oppressed so long as their own lives are intact. why should people who try to bring about change concern themselves with the lives of people who wouldn't bat an eye if their own lives were taken? that's not to say these people should be specifically targeted and murdered for being indifferent, cowardly or even admirers of the previous government. they are simply irrelevant and if they do want to be relevant they need to take a stand.
nowhere in my original comment had i mentioned that a 3rd party should get involved in that process. people should realize that if a 3rd party gets involved, 99% of the time it will be due to the 3rd party trying to benefit in some way. at times this is worth the involvement, at others it isn't. there will always be a price.
lastly, i don't believe im morally superior to the average joe. nevertheless, you are nowhere near the average joe on a moral scale, aren't you?