The last one I read about that told me indeed that NATO did the bombardment in Yugoslavia not for defense, but for a humanitarian clause that it also has in its preamble. I was surprised a bit that they have it in there, and how selective they choose to deploy that.

Nevertheless, in that situation there was foundation enough to understand the reasoning, and they did so only after the UN was not able to get together to effectively do something against concentration camps and genozidal tendencies by what was then Serbia.

Now the people who argue that NATO is an aggressive alliance have arguments like the Iraq war in their portfolio, which very clearly was not a nato operation.

Maybe kindly point me to a book that is worth reading, and I will put it on my list for consideration.