Sadam hangs. Mugabwe lives. Why?

Question

Both are/were tyrants. The US/Brits went all out to for Sadam.
Meanwhile, Mugabwe of Zimbabwe ploughs on with his killing of anyone that gets in his way. But the Western world does nothing about the starving people - especially children. They rattle sabres, and talk about embargo's and the like. This just puts pressure on the citizens of the country. But their heart is not in doing anything about it.
I know what the popular answer will be, but what do you think is the difference?

Answer 1

We can make money in Iraq, Africa offers nothing. War is not always profitable. Anyone who thinks America goes to war based on principles is fooling themselves.

Answer 2

In general apathy.
As what is happening in Zimbabwe is of no interest to the US politically of financially they will do nothing.

The Brits have left it up to the Commonwealth to deal with, and that is just a talk-fest, like the UN.

So much to say,
So little progress
Sound familiar?

Answer 3

that's fate.