Chess Etiquette: Winning on time when you are extremely behind

Yes. If you lose on time in a winning (or drawn) position, then it's your own fault for not managing your own time well.

By "technically a draw", I meant a drawn position in which neither side could win it no matter how much time remained.  I accept the rules of chess, and as I said, I'm not complaining about the loss.

Assuming best play.

The clock reveals a lot of skill gaps.

Two very good points. I apologize for being rude. My posts reveal a lot of mental gaps on my part I'm afraid. Best wishes to all and may all of your opponents have better etiquette than me. 

I didn't notice any rudeness on your part.

I just watched Hikaru and Eric Hansen playing king rook vs king rook.  Clearly a draw but both players only had a couple of seconds on the clocks.  They frantically moved pieces until Eric blundered and his rook got skewered.  These guys are professionals and it is ridiculous to say that anything was done wrong or impolitely.  Follow the rules and play to win.  That is the etiquette of chess.  

Little babies feel guilty for winning no matter how they do it

That this thread has gone on so long, seems to me, is evidence that people feel some guilt about blitzing wildly in the last seconds of a game.  Fischer said "That's not chess," and the reason it is a question at all is because, at some level of conscience, most people agree.

Fischer said and did a lot of things...

"I just won a game I feel scummy about. I was way up on time, but my opponent had a queen and two rooks against my lone baby pawn. He had been unsuccessfully chasing me around in this setup for quite a while, but I'm sure he knew his endgames and just needed another couple of days or so to figure it out. It felt cheap to win that way. I have dishonored my family and myself. How will I look at my children in the eye and tell them that I, their father, won on something as trivial and invalid as time? Sure, time management is part of the conditions that myself and my opponent both agreed on when we started the game. Indeed, it might be argued that it is unsportsmanlike to complain about losing under rules one freely agreed to. But what about the arbitrary one-sided etiquette that someone on the Internet made up? How can I possibly go against such a powerful moral imperative? Is that the kind of man I want to be?"

If an opponent is running out of time due to internet connection issues or is at risk of auto resigning, I will usually offer a draw. However, when these problems are sitewide and I also have been losing due to dropped games, I just take the win. 

Heck, let's just do away with clocks and say that whenever  the game ends , by checkmate, by stalemate, by agreed draw or by too many moves rules,  by death of  a player or whatever, then  the player with the most material left on the board automatically gets the win, based on the material moral imperative principle.

The clock is my third rook. Deal with it.

the clock is like a second queen in chess

I dislike winning/losing at chess also, but it is part of the game. You wouldn't give back material to "make it fair" why give back time? 

Flagging - just like hitting people with balls in dodgeball - is a part of the game; if your opponent miss-manages their time, yet you don’t take advantage of it, then I would consider you to have lost on purpose. 

In OTB, there is a rule that you can claim draw if your opponent is not trying to win "on board", regardless if the position is equal (theoretical/tablebase draw) or lost (and the opponent has no counterplay).

Obviously, this is hard to always consider exactly, but this rule can apply in general.

However, in blitz games, this rule is specifically excluded, therefore trying to flag your opponent is a valid winning strategy.

Personally, the reason I play with increment is for situations which are easy to win or draw "without thinking", meaning if the opponent does not play to win, I can just as well shuffle pieces around and therefore force a draw without losing on time,

In OTB chess, if my opponent is in severe time trouble - for example in a 40 in 2 time control they have 2 minutes to make 13 moves - one thing I've tried is to prepare 2 moves every time it's my turn. Because clearly my opponent is interested in thinking on my time, probably preparing a response for whatever move they think I'll make, plus maybe another one, so I'll do the same and prepare a response for whatever I think their response will be.