[whatshisface]

It is called "the NATO bombing" but not all NATO members participated. NATO's involvement was based around Article 4 which only says the member states can "consult together." This implies that it was more of a United States + select allies bombing than a NATO bombing, because the US did most of it, and got other countries to participate through means that existed independently of NATO.

Why, then, would it be called the NATO bombing? Probably because A. it distances it from entities that American voters are familiar with, (compare "Bill Clinton's bombing") and B. it creates a smokescreen of weird international law issues.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_of_the_NATO_bombing...

[infiniteL0Op]

That is a bit like saying only the executor of the gang has attacked you, but they did a vote before and nobody dared stoping Clinton, and NATO shares funds don't they?

So there wasn't an outcry, let alone sanctions or consequences.

Everybody knows it was Clinton and advisors, the bombing was still a NATO bombing. You can't have it both ways, make the us hide behind the NATO skirt and say not everyone has participated.

It goes to show the institution is biased and has no teeth other than the American ones.

[whatshisface]

NATO is and was a defensive alliance. The idea that NATO is the military of the western world was briefly useful for American, err, propaganda ("look, the whole world supports these bombings, it's not just us"), and is now being used to serve Russian propaganda ("help help the belligerent gang of nations wants to set up bases within driving distance of Moscow.") but was never really true.

If NATO confers any offensive power, it's to let member states push harder on nonmilitary avenues because it gives them less to fear in terms of military reprisals. Otherwise, there's article 4 which allows member states which are independently deciding to act to do so with some association with the NATO flag. When nations send delegates to sit in a big room and vote they are expressing their policies, not deciding them.

>You can't have it both ways, make the us hide behind the NATO skirt and say not everyone has participated.

I'm trying to have it the second way. The US was only able to cover its action with the flag of NATO insofar as people haven't read what Article 4 says countries can do (basically, talk to each other).