[Former Proud Canadian]

NATO's reason for existence is to help any member state that is attacked. The idea is that an attack on a member state would be met by the combined military might of all the states.

Which NATO signatory was attacked by Serbia in the Balkans war?

Answer: None, but NATO attacked Serbia anyway.

Which NATO signatory was attacked on 9/11 and what was NATO's response?

Answer: The US was undeniably attacked on 9/11 by Afghanistan. There was some immediate military aid from the UK, Germany, and Canada. After the taliban government was unseated, American, Canadian and UK ground troops and special forces took up the fight in Afghanistan. Some other NATO nations sent token forces to the theater.

Which NATO signatory was recently attacked by Libya and what was NATO's response?

Answer: No NATO signatory was attacked, although an argument could be made that the US and Libya have been conducting a low level conflict since the 1980's. The largest "battle" was the destruction of a US flagged aircraft over Lockerbie. This was certainly an act of war. NATO finally responded years later with the US sending token forces.

Could someone explain to me what kind of alliance this is?

[org.whodat]

Since president bush signed an agreement with daffy and daffy paid restution and actually aided in the hunt for AQ and had al diplomatic relations restored, do not think the Lockerbie argument would fly.

War with NATO over Libya is illegal.

[Repeal The 17th]

“...The US was undeniably attacked on 9/11 by Afghanistan...”
-
I disagree with your undeniable fact.
Afghanistan did not attack the U.S.

[templarbeat]

Afghanistan didn’t attack the US on 9/11.

[templarbeat]

Afghanistan didn’t attack the US on 9/11.

[DTA]

>>>>Could someone explain to me what kind of alliance this is? <<<<<

The same way Warsaw Pact provided a fig leaf of multilateralism to USSR, NATO provides fig leaf of multilateralism to US.

NATO is US. Without US, NATO does not exist.

[Bokababe]

Could someone explain to me what kind of alliance this is?

The purpose of NATO died 20 years ago with the collapse of the Soviet Union, and NATO should have died with it.

Instead, NATO created a new reason for it's continued existence by morphing into an aggressive force and becoming involved in the Balkans "for humanitarian reasons" (It's worthwhile here to recall H.L. Mencken's words: "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule"), even though no NATO country was ever attacked.

From that point on, NATO has been working off the books -- US led, with less respect for NATO's original charter than these same megalomaniacs have for the US Constitution.

In fact, all that NATO has become is a way for our executive branch to go renegade and use military force without the required Congressional permission. Clinton and GWB at least kept up the pretense of "consulting Congress". With Libya, Obama didn't even bother to pretend.

The continuation of NATO means that we the people are no longer represented in any manner in the decision for the US to go to war. The senior leadership of other countries like this too, because they don't want to have to ask permission from their constituents either on matters of war and peace. They'd rather just deal, leader to leader

IMHO, NATO has become the military arm of the corporate globalists to defend their global business interests -- answerable to no one but each other, yet sticking us with the bill for defending their (not our) interests.

[hinckley buzzard]

Simple. Since the collapse of the USSR NATO has been an "alliance" in search of a purpose. The fact is that there is no reason for NATO's existence today. The euros just don't want to give up the handle on the US defense establishment, just in case. They were not up to the task of dealing with Serbia/Kosovo etc, so they defaulted to "NATO," which meant the US.

All NATO is today is, a tap on the US treasury.

[Elsie]

An entangling one...