(Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
There wasn't really the need to intervene in Tunisia, Egypt or Oman, as they reformed themselves through people power, and Yemen and Syria would only be destabilised by a Western presence, especially Syria due to it's considerably better equipped, Russian-backed military and very well entrenched regime. Bahrain, whilst terrible, was also strategically unsound for an intervention as it would have set off a whole mess of arguments with the Saudis and the UAE. The protests in other nations never amounted to enough to justify Western intervention.
We have to be selective and do what we can, where we can.
Do you really believe that? Don't you realise that, before we had 'helped out' in Libya, we could have also thought of a multitude of reasons why it wouldn't be smart to go in there too. If Cameron wanted to intervene in those countries, wouldn't he have been able to come up with reasons why it would be sensible to go in?