Because the situation is not symmetric. I'll explain. One side is adopting a pose which can be described as "universal", while the other isn't.
To say "I'm anti-war" is a pretty "universal" statement, is it not? It makes no allowances for particular exceptions. But that is precisely what the protesters say; they speak in universal terms such as, "war is ALWAYS the last resort", "war is a failure of diplomacy", "war is hell and I'm against it, there has got to be a better way". They are saying, or pretending, that their opposition in this particular case (U.S. military attacking Saddam's ruling regime of Iraq) is something which proceeds from a more general principle, namely, "war is bad and I'm anti-war".
Given this, it's quite fair to evaluate whether, in their past statements, they lived up to the general principles they are pretending to follow. That's where Yugoslavia comes in. Were these "anti-war" folks so "anti-war" in that case? Some of them were, actually. But most of them were not. It's a pretty clear-cut case of hypocrisy.
Now, you simply can't go in the other direction as easily, and this is because the "let's attack Saddam" faction is making no such claim to "universality". It's not like we're saying "let's attack Saddam because war is good" :-) We're saying: let's attack Saddam because the particularities of this situation appear to make it the only course of action.
Bringing up Yugoslavia against this statement is, therefore, irrelevant, unless Yugoslavia and Iraq have something significant in common with respect to the reasons the pro-war folks are giving for attacking Saddam.
What are those reasons? Basically the argument boils down to a pre-emptive strike against a madman who is our enemy, probably has WMDs, and has the type of temperament to use them against us or our friends.
But the preceding paragraph simply doesn't apply to Milosevic (except for the "madman" part). Unless you are prepared to argue otherwise by saying what Yugoslavia and Iraq supposedly have in common. Which is why I asked.
Are you saying it is more consistent to oppose war, or to support it? I think the flaw in your argument - and I've mentioned this before - is that you lump all of those who oppose the war into one, monolithic bunch. That is just as wrong as lumping those that supported both efforts into one pile.
Speaking for myself, I opposed both the efforts in the Balkans and in the Middle East. Missing in both cases were clear objectives, exit strategies and long-term plans. I was right in the Balkans. UN "peacekeepers" (don't you have to have peace to start with, in order to keep it? never mind) have been there for 10-12 years now and there is now sign of their returning home anytime soon. I thought it would establish a horrible precedent for American foreign policy, and one that would only lead to resentment of America abroad. I was right.
I see the same thing happening in Iraq. I predict we will be there forever, even after we oust Saddam and establish something like democracy. In a region and culture mired in the 6th century and that cannot handle anything like democracy, this will lead to even more terrorist attacks, more resentment of America, and more lost American troops.
I also predict we will not be greeted with open arms like all the media and the administration is saying. I suspect the Iraqis will resent more the Americans telling them how to do things than they will Saddam Hussein.
Finally, I hope you note that none of my arguments hinge on "war is ALWAYS the last resort", "war is a failure of diplomacy", "war is hell and I'm against it, there has got to be a better way", or overall concern for oppressed people. I frankly don't give a damn about them. I am concerned, however that American lives are going to be lost and wasted.
The best thing America can do is heed the advice of George Washington: avoid foreign entanglements and enchanting alliances.
No the anti-war left was against the Yugoslavian fiasco as was the non-interventist hard-right. I remember the protests. I was in fact at the Ohio State town meeting where Albright and others were jeered during their war tour. However you fail to make the distinction between the democrap leftist politicians in congress backing Clinton for political reasons and the anti-war left. Don't discount that the media largely ignored those anti-war protests. I believe there were more of them against the Yugoslavian invasion than Iraq.