arguments for and against foreign military intervention in Zimbabwe

And you can be absolutely sure that any embargo, of anything, will be felt by the general public, even indirectly.

problems, its still a sovereign nation (and doesnt have oil/diamonds)

Err, no it isn't. As far as I'm concerned, Mugabe was illegitimately re-elected and therefore has no electoral mandate. He isn't a de jure Head of State in the true sense, and therefore military intervention shouldn't be ruled out on the grounds of sovereignty.

On other grounds, such as the improbability of garnering UN backing, is a different matter however.

I dont remeber Gordon brown being elected at all

No, you're quite right. But the Labour Party were. It's not ideal, but it's by no means on the level of Mugabe.

Moreover, Brown's tenure is at least legitimate; the people accept Brown is leader with no coercive forces ensuring the status quo. In Zimbabwe, a majority voted against Mugabe and he still re-took power.

Absolutely true. But what would military intervention actually achieve? Isn't it likely that it would lead to a greater loss of life than could be caused by Mugabe's "governance" of the country?