Some entities may choose to disappoint others in themselves and choose a less moral path if there is a benefit. The American Governments, on the other hand, may follow that path as if it is a requirement. They did that in Iraq with the uprising of 1991 leaving Saddam's army does things like those done at the times of the Pharaohs in reprehensibility. Contrary to what some may think about people like those in North Korea adding insult to the injury of being under a dictatorship, those people are further away than many if not most of those living in Western countries in believing these dictatorships. However, if you live all your life overpowered like those in places like these you may start to have the impression as if dictator overpowering is undefeatable. So even that factor alone may provide a good justification to why Iraqis did not move before the war.       

In 2012 the American government chose to apply on Egypt its strategy of disappointing others as if it is a requirement. They got an elected government and the power of the military  on different sides balancing things, yet our government here still chose to accept abolishment of the democratic process. Even if we assume they wanted to  count in or follow the choice of those who demanded the removal or did not want that government, do you think that those people would have accepted in exchange of that the abolishment of the entire democratic process making the military takes over?

Even if the American Government did not like the choice of the first election, had many of the people who did not vote earlier realized that it was a real democracy that is there to stay with no persecution for voting their choices, that government might not have gotten another term, but that was not given an opportunity to happen. 

The dictator sentenced the elected

The dictator of Egypt who took the power through military coup had sentenced the elected president to 20 rears in prison for alleged things he did to protesters during his term in 2012. I am sure things are much better now and everyone now can protest and without fear, right?

No one should be deceived into thinking that the courts there are real and that there is any amount of separation of power in dictatorships like these.

Also no one should confuse that with courts here being jokes and under control of corruption powers. This is a misuse for the empowerment of the continuous democracy not the absence of it. 

By the way , if I am not mistaken, didn't that military dictator promise elections that are very overdue by now? What happened to them? Or where they conducted under the very trust worthy supervision of his government?  

Those in Kenya killed people based on their inability to recite things from the Quran? Unfortunately for them, even reciting the whole Quran by heart shouldn't save them from being killed for killing those people. However, one can still be courteous enough to point out to them the verses calling on killing them for killing those people when recited.

Saudis cannot claim Iran being behind the actions of criminal groups like Al Shabab and Boko Haram because, as usual, they  are NOT Shia Muslims. Otherwise the Saudis can hardly be seen as wasting anything they can find about any Shia anywhere.

Those criminals in Kenya and Nigeria are roaming freely killing, abducting and enslaving people  but it is the Shia rebel in Yemen that is being attacked instead.      

Believe it, what you are seeing here is real - 2

They did not give a single thing to support why should those Shia in Yemen deserve to be treated different than any other internal opposition and be attacked by the Saudi coalition in their own country. Even if we ignore the question of what is there to support considering them like ISIS, I don't remember ISIS itself being attacked by an external military before they proceeded to invade and occupy a substantial territory in Iraq. That did not happen to them in Syria despite taking over and keeping under their control Syrian cities for a long time. As for whatever length of time Hizb-Allah interfered, and regardless of whatever attacks happened by ISIS inside Lebanon trying to drag it into the conflict, at least those were militia not the fighter air planes or military machinery coming from Iran, or any other country to attack ISIS. 

Despite the occupation of ISIS to significant Iraqi territory it was again fought back by a militia not air planes or military machinery crossing the border from Iran. Moreover, that militia itself, Badr brigade, originally the force of the assassinated Iraqi opposition Al Hakim, according to what I knew from a long time ago, is generally comprised from Iraqis who were oppositions from Iran or those deported by Saddam not Iranians. 

Lets also not forget how the Saudis sent their army to suppress the civilian Shia in Bahrain before any of this happened.

Believe it, what you are seeing here is real

They just want to jump on the Shia for reason or no reason.