I've always felt that was the real reason the he was ousted. Other national leaders, both in and outside Africa, have done far worse than him yet have never been invaded.
It was the Arab Spring and internal strife which kicked off Ghadaffi's downfall with the events at Benghazi getting the international community - lead by France, ISTR involved.
The UN kicked Libya off the Human Rights Commission, following a report by Amnesty documenting warcrimes on the government and rebel sides and it all degenerated into a nasty civil war. I don't think it is correct to say that he was "ousted" by Western forces in any particularly meaningful way.
>I would say it is not only a moral obligation that the better-off countries have to tackle poverty in our world when we still have over a billion people living on less than a dollar a day, but it's also in our interests that we build a more prosperous world.
For european corporations and shareholders, that is. It would probably be better for the majority of people, because higher stabilityand prosperity in Africa will result in fewer refugees, which results in fewer issues with rightwing nutjobs.
Thats not how political dynasties work.
Newer history of Africa is almost exclusively defined by consequences of external manipulation, driven by financial interests.
In general, you can look up the definition of "neocolonialism".