Yes, the bombing of Yugoslavia. I was 5 when that happened hiding in basement like poor Ukrainians do right now. Feel free to do some googling on your own, there are many cases like: Libya, Syria. Who will be next?
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...
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.
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).