What really was the problem with the late Gaddafi's Leadership as the president of Libya. What possibly would have led NATO signatories (UK,US and Britain) to be all over His rule and yet the citizens were happy (most of them) ; like everything was okay as far as the living standards of the people, the free education and the rich oil resource. Wasn't he a Benevolent Dictator if dictatorship was anything to go by?
In a nutshell, Gaddafi was too damn good. He was not a U.S. puppet and in fact worked to counter U.S. imperialism. Gaddafi was the most prominent spokesman for African unity.
And it gets worse...
Under Gaddafi's "dictatorship," Libya boasted the highest or second highest standard of living in Africa. The U.S. has a long history of destroying countries that are too successful or too just.
There are still more possibilities. For example, people from various African countries migrated to Libya in search of work and a better life. From what I've read, Libya wasn't noticeably racist before the CIA-backed rebellion.
Some think the French wanted Gaddafi dead because of his satellite project, which would have diverted a lot of money from France (and made Africa more independent at the same time).
Another interesting thing to research is Gaddafi's Green Revolution, or whatever it's called. He wanted to turn Libya into Africa's breadbasket. Again, that would have made Africa more independent and therefore less dependent on phony welfare from capitalist crooks like Bill Gates. One might also ask if Monsanto felt threatened by Gaddafi's venture. (Monstanto, of course, is the power behind genetically modified food, and Bill Gates is GMO's most prominent spokesman.)
I'm sorry your question got so many downvotes; this forum is heavily infested with propagandists. I joined just a couple days ago, and I'm seriously wondering if it's worth sticking around. They either need to clean up their act or rename it propaganda.stackexchange.com.
Case in point: The comments about Gaddafi's "viciousness" are utterly absurd. I did a lot of research on Gaddafi's crimes and was amazed at how difficult it was to find credible evidence of any substantial misdeeds.
The anti-Gaddafi propaganda isn't hard to find, though. The claim that he gave his troops Viagra in the hope that they would rape innocent women is about as believable as the story about Iraqi troops yanking babies out of incubators in Kuwait. Another story claims Gaddafi had a crush on Condoleeza Rice. The source? Condoleeza Rice.
The stories got even more bizarre after Gaddafi was murdered. As a longtime political activist, I consider Gaddafi one of the greatest heroes of our generation. I'm very sad that I believed the propaganda myself until shortly before NATO destroyed Libya. My attitude quickly change when I easily verified the claim about Libya's amazingly high standard of living.
There are many more specific claims about pre-NATO Libya that I haven't yet verified. I believe college was free, and I've read many claims that newlyweds were given a monetary allowance. It's very sad that there's no website (that I know of) that accurately documents all of Gaddafi's accomplishments.
P.S. Take a screenshot of this page. I can practically guarantee your question will get more downvotes, and my answer will be deleted - with no explanation.
The same question can be asked about what was wrong with Mubarak. Definitely Mubarak conducted pro-Western policy not only in the latest years.
Currently the West supports radical islamists in the Arab world, such as Al-Qaeda affiliated Al-Nusra front in Syria and Muslim Brotherhood. People like Gaddaffi, Mubarak, Assad are the obstacles for the islamists so the West wants them to be desposed.
With Gaddaffi additional issues were his image (the clothing, the gold-knitted uniform etc which supports the image of a "mad" dictator) and his (alleged) past deeds.
A Gaddaffi's mistake was that he thought that he could win Western favor by his loyal policy. Particularly, in the later years
His regime conducted torture and imprisonment on various terrorists handled to him by the West. The West used him to do things which were illegal in western countries.
He financially supported the pro-Western "orange revolution" in Ukraine (2004).
He financially supported some right-wing western politicians, like Sarkozy in France in hope they would become more friendly to him.
He tried to improve relations with Israel (with no success).
His son and likely successor Seif(executed recently by the new regime) had even more pro-Western attitude.
There were no real problems with Gaddafi. It was just a declared US policy change to stop supporting dictators like him.
Secretary Condoleezza Rice Cairo, Egypt June 20, 2005
For 60 years, my country, the United States, pursued stability at the expense of democracy in this region here in the Middle East -- and we achieved neither. Now, we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people.