Why do you consider the NATO bombings of Serbia to be the moral equilivant of the US attack on Iraq. It seems to me that there are several differences.
1. Iraq was thought to be hiding weapons of mass destruction. I don't reacall Serbia having the same issues.
2. Iraq was training terrorists that had killed 3,000 Americans. I don't recall Serbia having done this.
I am not saying that the US/NATO didn't have sufficient reasons for doing what it did in Serbia, I just think that the case is less compelling and the same arguments cannot be made between the two conflicts.
I agree with you that they're not equivalent, and please don't think that I'm opposing the Iraq War.
But I do think that regardless of what you think of a specific government policy, you are obligated to support your country against its enemies in time of war -- with the sole exception of a few most extreme circumstances. There are exceptions to that, such as Stalin, such as Hitler, but they are rare exceptions. We may not care for Bill Clinton or his policies, but he was no Hitler.