Two Rules for Genocides

As a card-carrying member of the American Far Left, which is unique among Far Lefts in the world, I have been looking for insights into how to react to the United Nations intervention in Libya. This is a confusing matter, but I believe I have figured out the underlying rules for correct responses.

Rule One: The United States and the United Nations should never intervene in a genocide if the country involved has oil reserves. That would cost us our personal moral integrity. We might gain the world and save millions of lives, but we would lose our souls. (See Libya, for example.) What really matters here is not the Libyans but our rejection of situational ethics.

Rule Two: We should not intervene in a non-oil genocide unless we intervene in all genocides--I estimate that at any time in human history, there have been roughly ten genocides going on. To intervene in one genocide while ignoring the other nine would be logically inconsistent. (See Bosnia, for example.) Also, this rule is retroactive in the sense that if we failed to intervene in earlier genocides (the Trojan War, the fall of Jericho, the Persian Wars, the Holocaust) we would be wrong to intervene today.