No way to win

Recent discussion have made me think about no win genocide situations. It has and does happen when a majority of people decide they want a minority gone. What do we do as a capable nation? Do we follow "the prime directive" and let the underdeveloped fight amongst themselves thinking we are above the intervention of the less civilized? Or do we see ourselves merely as a collection of force that has been monopolized and can therefore act as one and protect the victims from their attackers since they are simply the victims of being powerless?
I'd always vote for the second since there will always be groups who want to wipe out other groups and the fact that the persecutors are democratically elected doesn't justify it.
Now I'm sure you all want to point out that if we get involved we are just empowering the victims and making the attackers the victims. There in lies the danger and why if the attackers are democratically elected it poses a no win problem. The fact that they are democratically elected and have still taken such a monstrous action is proof that this hatred is deep seeded in the population. So even if we stopped the immediate attacks they would start up again as soon as we leave and if we topple the attackers we are just as bad as they were and have a unstable situation were we have given false power to the minority they cannot hold without our help and we are stuck.
As I see it this is a general template to most intervention situations I know and there is no simple answer. Damned if you do and damned if you don't, although some would say then lets choose to not intervene and learn to live with the guilt.