What his clothes? He refuses to accept degenerate western culture. Good for him.
His pan-africanism? If you're against that, then you're also against DuBois, Nkrumah, Mandela, and many other African freedom fighters who have had the same dreams.
Of course I don't mean his clothes (though now that you mention it his habit of obsessively changing robes is a bit odd). The man's speeches are often strange and eratic, as are some of his 'publicity' exercises. And his pan-africanism would be more credible had he not begun as a supporter of pan-arabism. Indeed he recently threatened to "take Libya out of Africa and put it back into Europe", or something to that effect. It seems to me that he aligns Libya to certain blocks based on what he feels to be in the state's best interests. It's no worse than western foreign policy, but it's also no better.
My opinion of Khadaffi is based on ... the kind of government he runs, the society he has created
and yet,
Libya has certainly seen more prosperity under his rule than under its previous rulers...
Khadaffi not being the worst ruler of all time (or even the worst Libyan ruler of all time) does not make him a
good ruler. Those two statements are in no way mutually exclusive. I'd like to think Libyans can hope for more than autocratic leaders who are distinct only in their degree of brutality and corruption.
America has not adopted its policy begrudgingly. It has deliberately and passionately hated Libya for a very long time.
The definition of a neo-conservative is a former liberal turned conservative. If you're with the crusaders, then count me out.
17, in the last five years Western governments ended their ostracization of Libya, concluding that he was of more value to them as an ally. Now because of these protests, they've had to backtrack and end their support, saying "wooo, democracy" and other such hypocritical nonsense. Their support for these protests is most certainly begrudging, just as it was in Egypt, because the West has propped up and endorsed these regimes.
As for your second point, I tend not to self-identify with ideologies or political positions, especially anything as vague and ill-defined as 'liberal'. However, I do want to say that being a liberal does not mean supporting anything that conservatives hate. It means supporting certain values, wherever they are under threat. It is not consistent to stick up for the right of workers to organise and fight for their rights in Wisconsin (for example), and then saying Khadaffi is great when he forbids precisely that kind of organisation in Libya. It is not consistent to attack American legislation such as the Patriot Act, or policies such as detention without trial in Guantanamo, and yet defend the repressive Khadaffi regime.
As I said earlier, opposing western policy doesn't mean supporting Khadaffi.
It seems that you searched for the highest rated country in the world on this list in order to bad mouth Khaddafi because Libya scored worse than the number one rated country. Norway is ranked number one on this list, but they also produce more oil than Libya.
List of Top World Oil Producing Countries
http://www.eia.doe.gov/countries/
Yet China, Russia, Nigeria, Mexico, Brazil, and Saudi Arabia all produce more oil than Libya produces, and all these countries score lower than Libya on the International Human Development index! Yet, you omit any mention of this (!) concentrating exclusively on the fact that Libya scored worse than number one.
This is why I think that the only reason you cited this index was to make Khadaffi look bad.
I studied Norway's economy in secondary school geography class, so I knew plenty about it already. I chose it as a point of comparison because it produces a similar amount of oil to Libya,
and has a similar population. None of the other countries you mention are in any way similar in this respect, which is why I didn't mention them. For example, China simply doesn't produce enough oil for it to significantly boost the wealth of its citizens by itself. In fact, China is a massive net-importer of oil, whereas oil accounts for 1/4 of Libya's exports. I imagine the same is true (to a greater or lesser degree) of Brazil and Mexico. What's more, all of the countries you mention have extremely large populations, whereas Libya has a comparatively tiny population. It's simply not an instructive comparison.