Apologies Old Guy, if I didn't make my points clearer. In answer to your questions:

I totally agree with you. I think the bombing campaign was indirectly a crucial factor in the chain of events that finally toppled Milosevic, without it he would still be there.

Milosevic's experience in dealing with the United Nations attempts at resolving the conflict in the former Yugoslavia led him to believe that he could get away with anything he wanted to do. Serbia's traditional ally, Russia, could be guaranteed to protect him from direct UN backed military intervention by using their veto in the UNSC.

What he didn't count on was intervention by NATO, whose actions the Russians could not protect him from. So again I totally agree with you - the bombing was essential to destroy the Serbian Army's ability to carry-out their campaign of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, which up until then had proceeded unhindered.

In the UK and other European countries demonstrations were held by people voicing their opinions against the NATO action. What I tried to say in my post was that had those demonstrators been listened to, thousands of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo would have been slaughtered and Milosevic would still be in power.

I believe that Saddam Hussein's thinking is roughly along the same lines as Milosevic's. He believes that the UN will adopt the line of least resistance, as it nearly always does, and that Russia and France will do everything in their power to protect him. Unfortunately for the people of Iraq there is no regional organisation that can intervene as NATO did in Serbia.