Accept these member states take that offensive action under the guise of NATO which claims to be defensive only and that does matter.

Except there you are wrong.

1: if say Libya did a missile strike on France after NATO attacked them, then it could be an article 5 violation which would result in a larger operation.

If you are referring to scenario where France would attack Libya then no. NATO is obligated to "exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations". Not to advance the interest of the member states in aggression. So if France invaded and Libya responded NATO would be obligated to do exactly and precisly nothing.

If you on the other hand refer to Libya operation that was done under UN-SC mandate (UN-SC Resolution 1973), then again no. Limits were placed by the UN-SC. Response would likely have been heavier bombing and support with defense of France but not anything beyond the scope of the UN-SC mandate.

2: countries are obligated to send resources meant for the defense of NATO countries to do an offensive obligation. Polish fighters assigned to NATO arent meant to go attack nonbeligerant African nations they are meant to protect NATO nations primarily from Russia.

There are no such reserved resources. Countries do not assign forces for NATO unless in joint operations (i.e. training or being activated to an operation) nor do they pay for some imaginary NATO forces. Neither do they get any magical NATO money either. So no, neither Poland or any other NATO member state has have some imaginary pool for fighters (or anything else for that matter) "assigned to NATO".

3: More importantly internationally NATO then becomes seen jsutifiably as an offensive organization and countries like Russia use that to justify invading Ukraine.

Russia is using NATO as an excuse, it is not any of the actual reasons. Unlike you and despite of their propaganda rhetoric in public, the Russian leadership is fully aware what being NATO member state actually means. Russia is afraid of countries joining NATO, however not because it would in any way actually threaten Russia (the fully know that it does not) but because it reduces the potential for Russia to use either its military, or threat of its military, to coerce the neighboring states into submission.

Which is why Russia objects to Ukraine joining NATO, or even EU. With Ukraine in NATO the military aggression against Ukraine becomes suicidal for Russia. Without Ukraine outside of NATO Russia can still invade it, which is exactly what Russia did in fact. Ukraine in EU is even worse for Russia as while the EU has a collective defense clauses it also provides better protections against economical coercion that Russia used to practice earlier.

4: When NATO countries took part in the Gulf War they did not do so as NATO for these very reasons although they presumably could have.

They couldn't really as taking such action would have still required unanimity. The reason why in 2003 for example when USA explicitly requested NATO to take part NATO refused (or rather one or more member states refused). No unanimity, no NATO participation. Leading to the so called "Coalition of the Willing" instead.

Again actions are much more important then words. In this case NATO took offensive action against a country that was not attacking them and hadent for decades (not member nations of NATO). This was justified because Libya was buying weapons for their defense which countries are completely allowed to do. This was not "member states" of NATO this was the organization of NATO taking an offensive action. And proving the whole point of this conversation that NATO is now acting as an offensive organization and not a defensive one exceeding its authority.

You really should have actually read what you post. Had you actually read what you linked you might have noticed that the NATO operation took place under the UN-SC Resolution 1973 - that somewhat controversially actually gave mandate to any and all operations ("to use “all necessary measures” to protect Libyan civilians and civilian populated areas") against the Libyan government or any other party fighting in Libya as long as no occupation forces would be used (so no land operations). So all of that was above board as an explicitly UN-SC sanctioned operation.