"And have been unable to give me a realistic reason as to why he was removed in a NATO effort at a large expense for all countries involved."
Libya was a fairly cheap intervention. That is why it was left to devour itself afterwards. France was the driving force behind Qaddafi's removal with British agreement. It did not come from DC. Why Sarkozy picked that battle to fight is, as I hope was clear, speculative from my perspective.
"All of NATO does not get involved in a quarrel between two nations."
"All of NATO" was not involved in decapitating Libya. It was at most three countries meaningfully involved. Italy specifically demanded a NATO banner in exchange for operational support precisely to prevent the French military from being completely in charge.
"Especially France and it’s former colony."
Libya was never a French colony.
"And are a widely known fact that Gaddafi was in fact supportive of these prior listed objectives/ ideas."
By the end, Qaddafi was well into his decadent, debauched emperor stage. He was clearly on drugs to the point of near psychosis. He was not capable of translating any of his grandiose, slurred ranting into action by the end nor did anyone in Africa take him seriously. No external leader in his right mind would have gotten into bed with Libya under Qaddafi. Even when he was at the peak of his mental abilities and less demonstrably unstable emotionally, he hired Carlos the Jackal to murder Yamani and Amuzegar while masking the assassination as a terrorist action by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and did not seem to anticipate that Carlos & company would sell him out. He was always a reckless and unreliable partner.
"And that the European issues of ammunition was a main driving force of the US joining."
A quick Google search returns a Washington Post article from April 15th and a document from The Atlantic Council dated April 17th about France and Britain running short of munitions after basically 2 weeks of an air campaign.
"That is basic....that is it."
You are missing my point entirely. The UK could not settle its own foreign trade accounts in gold due to not having enough physical gold to do so as a practical matter. The world has not had a currency regime meaningfully based on gold since before the first world war. The interwar system was a house of cards that had only been half way set up when it froze up and then collapsed in the late 1920s. When the US owned nearly all of the gold in the world after World War II, France was able to crash the system almost single handedly when the US did not even trade that much with France as compared to Germany. And the world has undergone a financial expansion of nearly unimaginable scale since Nixon and Connally [temporarily] closed the gold window in 1971. The idea that physical gold could be used on a practical level to internationally settle multilateral trade imbalances among even a small number of relatively autarkic countries seems extremely unlikely to me.
"Just like politicians like Castro, Allende, Chavez, he was removed."
I read this as an assertion that Castro and Chavez were removed, which seems ludicrous.
"In 2002 there was a coup d’état to remove Chavez from power."
I remember it happening and had professional reasons to be paying attention. I am confident that the US government was caught almost completely off guard by events on the ground in Caracas. The interruption to oil flows was actually VERY inconveniently timed given other more important things that were going on at the time. What happened was far less of a "coup d’état" than Chavez's attempt.