Is it hypocritical to support one military action and not the other? I'm actually not sure. I'm not old enough to remember UK going into Kosovo, but I think I would have been for military intervention in the Balkans. There are some who are always against these interventions, people like Tony Benn etc. There are also conservitives like Malcolm Rifkind who was against intervention in Kosovo and Iraq. There are others who shared the views of Robin Cook, for the first war, not the other. Another Hitchenesque school of thought is always confusing, defining missiling Sudan as a war crime, but, defending the intervention of Iraq. I was against intervention in Iraq from the start. Does it make me hypocritical? I think on the basis that Milosovic was threatning other countries and ethnic blocs. But I didn't believe Iraq was threatning other countries, the failiure to get a second UN resoloution, the faulty intelligance etc. were the reasons for my opposition. Hussein was obviously lots of things which I won't choose to say on a Sunday morning. If the 'Blairesque' school of thought is to be believed, then we would also have to intervene in Belarus, Burma, Zimbabwe, China, North Korea, Sudan, Venezuela, Cuba, Iran and many other countries. And I'm sure, that many bloggers would like to see intervention in some of these countries, but not others.

Gordon Brown joins John Prescott in telling Andrew Marr's Sunday AM that Saddam hanging was "deplorable"
Update [2007-1-7 7:9:7 by alexanderbaker]: Brown's comments prompt Downing Street response

We've just received news that Saddam Hussein, the ousted Iraqi leader, was executed about an hour ago. Do I sense an open thread coming into play? You guessed it!

Does this affect the direction that Iraq will head in over the course of the new year? (of course it does!)

Does Saddam's execution even matter at all? We have prevailing opinion that suggests that we're all about to witness a country torn apart at its roots by civil war - is this the precursor to such a  scenario?