Why? Because Libya was stable under Khadaffi (as stable as those kind of places get) and people had it relatively very good. And yet he was portrayed like some Dr. Evil plotting to takeover the world, so that the western masses will cheer when he got toppled and foreign interests get the oil and natural resources.
And the very thing was hailed as a "triumph of democracy" etc (what a democracy, when foreign leaders cheer when an adversary is beaten to a pulp -- gone are the days when even Nazi generals were treated with respect by the western officers when captured).
Well, it didn't last long, now, as predicted, Libya will get to be another unstable, civil-war, dogmatic islam nightmarish country.
Egypt isn't exactly improving, if anything they are moving backwards at the hands of religious zealots. Algeria is in a better state as its government is still in place.
Iran ended up going Islamist after a monarchy installed by the US and Britain, unseating a democratically elected government, failed. Hopefully Libya won't go that way, but wouldn't be that surprising.
These actions have been pretty clearly condemned by Libyans and don't represent the whole country.
But nice try flogging your conspiracy theory.
I suspect, 10 years from now, the well-educated youth who grew up in secularist and nationalist Arab regimes, will think they made a big mistake when they toppled them. Like Coptic Christians who badmouthed Mubarak in Egypt, they didn't know how good they really had it.
EDIT: to clarify, I'm not saying that murderous dictators are a good thing. What I'm saying is that, by toppling them with all-out revolutions, they've probably thrown the baby out with the bathwater, because they've discredited the whole nationalist/secularist argument.
Considering Qadafi and Mubarak were getting very old, it would have been much better to negotiate a gradual transition to parliamentary rule, like they've had in Spain or Chile.