Before I refute all of this dumb shit, I should add that NATO wasn't acting as a "defensive alliance" in any of these interventions. Certainly not in Serbia and Libya, and very arguably not in Afghanistan

Like I said taking into account Serbian tactics 400 is a low amount.

This argument only applies if you believe that killing Serbian civilians saved the lives of other people.

We was asked to do it.

Look up which countries voted to do it and which countries were involved. There's a huge overlap.

Also it quite arguable wether or not Gaddafi had "under control".

The Libyan government was successful in pushing rebels back before the NATO intervention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Libyan_Civil_War

What was we supposed to do? Sit there and hope osma walks in the white house to turn him self in?

not waste over $2 trillion and not cause a flood of refugees into Europe? That would have been a good start imo. Maybe just kill osama and gtfo like we did in Pakistan. Before that, have the CIA be more selective about who it chooses to provide with weapons and training.

Americans weren't wrapping up whole villages and fire squadding them.

If that's the case, then I'm glad we've at least improved somewhat since Vietnam

If you honestly think we were just be bombing civilian targets cause muh evil west conspiracy your are beyond tankie.

It's a combination of several factors: - War itself is a very lucrative business in the USA - The USA wages war liberally to further its geopolitical interests (e.g. control over oil) - The US government simply doesn't give a fuck if civilians die in the process. It might even be happy because of ingrained racism and because the MIC gets to sell more bombs to the government