I think this line of reasoning is tackling the argument on the wrong end. What happens in reality is that interventions are carefully picked in regards to political and economical benefits, while other atrocities are silently accepted. Human Rights abuses are tolerated or even supported for years until either the beneficiaries change or the public attention becomes too strong. What's more is that often times the democratic process and human rights are actually undermined by, for example, the support of various military dictators that in turn commit genocide - and this as well is coined under the umbrella of democracy, free markets and human rights, even while it was still going on. Should governments intervene? I say not in the political system we are currently in - too many skeletons in the closet.

Although I do see the moral dilemma and obligation to helping those being oppressed and slaughtered. What I think should change is the mechanisms in which these interventions function, shifting to a more trustworthy and selfless, as well as diplomatic approach. I think no government institutions should be able to 'pull the trigger'. Decisions and the call for the need to intervene, as well as the course of actions itself should be left to non-governmental human rights umbrella groups that specialize in human rights abuses, show the cultural sensitivity necessary and lack the political and economical agenda that make the "wars for humanitarian reasons" feel like such a joke.