When to Intervene?

Today, in my Political Theory of Human Rights class, the subject was 'Human Rights and Humanitarian Intervention'. Essentially, three of us assumed the role of 3 cosmopolitan-leaning theorists: Aafka as Luban, Naoise as Doppelt and myself as Beitze and another, Kristina, took the role of the communitarian, Walzer, who is essentially responsible for reviving and applying the ancient 'Just War Theory' in his 1970's book, Just and Unjust Wars.

Walzer essentially limits military intervention into another country's affairs under 3 pretenses:
1) to come to the aid of a secessionist movement (typically of a multi-national state)
2) to serve as a counter-intervention, if say, an outside country is helping one side of a Civil War
3) to prevent mass genocide or massacre

Well - I recognize, after today's class, the need for 'limits' or boundaries when it comes to intervention, but I cannot for the life of me limit interventions to the three outlined by Walzer. However, going any further than he advocates, and I presumably end up justifying the actions of a Bush in Iraq. (The second Bush and second Iraq War).

The main argument, put forth by Walzer is that human rights and cultural values need a home, a location, and that any outside interference (militarily) would compromise the 'community's' or the common peoples attempts to create a government, a country or nation that they want. Nevermind, that in most nations, a rich, militarily powerful and elite group tend to create the structure. Walzer's reply, would of course be: well, the people can rebel at any time. A people that set up a country that denies certain rights, is better than one set up by outsiders guaranteeing certain (other or similar) rights. So - the Zimbabwe's, Sudan's and North Korea's of the world are really better off, because, despite some oppression, they are living closer to their traditions, heritage and values than an outsider would provide them.

I just cannot believe that.