Qaddafi was an arrogant scoundrel. But that wasn't why NATO got involved. Qaddafi was hell-bent on doing away with fiat currency, and replacing it with a gold standard. He also refused to treat oil as currency. He was nearing success. When a country goes to gold standard, it sheds light on a few things. First, and foremost, it reveals exactly how much gold there is in the country. Because it's gold-backed, there isn't any room for fiat. Secondly, it shows the strength of the economy. If a country CAN be gold-backed, then obviously they have the demonstrated ability to put their money where their mouth is. Qaddafi was a stone's throw away from showing the world the economic strength of his country. But a third thing happens. It calls the bluff of other countries. For instance, if Qaddafi can have a gold-backed system, why can't we? How much gold do we actually have? Do we even have any gold? Are our treasuries so woeful that our currency would collapse if we knew how useless the dollar bill was? Multiply these questions for every major currency and economy. Suddenly, you've got a few billion people who just realized the paper lining their wallets is useless, and that the government has been bluffing the currency for years. Immediate austerity. Revolt. The State would burn, people would die. Financial security becomes a shoddy joke.
Qaddafi was an arrogant scoundrel, but his greatest worth, and accomplishment, would be reviving the gold standard.
If he succeeded, the world governments would have been torn apart.
This is where NATO comes in.
NATO is the military arm of capitalism.
When capitalism perceives a threat, it sends NATO to do the dirty work.
In this case, NATO prevented catastrophic failure of global economy. Sounds like a good thing, right? But instead of a reality shock, we traded Qaddafi for peaceful ignorance.
I appreciate your view, and I don't feel any insults, but we must be more informed than to swing along with whatever The State tells us - example: NATO.