Yeah see this is my point. If NATO isn't defensive enough then I've got to imagine he doesn't really want any type of meaningful alliance and therefore the powerful do what they want and the weak suffer it.

attacking other countries, like Iraq, is very definitely not defensive

NATO didn't invade Iraq.

Those who invaded Iraq, Uk and USA, knew they could offload some reconstruction onto nato. So nato enabled the invasion.

That's as stupid as saying that the fire brigade cutting people out of cars after crashes enables people to drive dangerously. Some of the largest NATO members forcefully and vociferously protested against the invasion of Iraq.

Nonsense. Some NATO members might complain about the war but it was alway known they were going to help train and support what ever was the post war situation was. Why should they get involved in a war of aggression by nato members when nato should just be about defence?

In what way is training and supporting a sovereign governments own forces after they have invited you and under the auspices of a unsc mandate an aggressive act?

NATO should be able the defence of nato members. Not clearing up the mess made by nato members who are involve in wars. The uk and us shouldn’t have been able to offload the cost, risk and logistics onto nato.

Hold on, so you don't think NATO should be providing support to Ukraine right now?

I think countries who are in nato should but not nato. NATO should be 100% defensive of other nato members

Indeed nato shouldn’t have been involved in the post war reconstruction at all even in a non combat way.. their support would be weight into the calculation of the cost of war by the aggressors

So you don't want your defensive alliance to be active anywhere in even non combat ways? What exactly would it do again? Just send the Russians love letters and beg them not to invade another European country?