"Human rights" or "democracy" have nothing to do with current wars of conquest except that these words are used as cover to hide institutionalized mass murder and theft. In fact, human rights and democracy are usually the first casualties of any invasion.
The "West", however, understands the value of these words to sell wars that invariably destroy "non-compliant" secular governments in favour of divisive fundamentalist regimes.
Human lives are superfluous to the overriding imperial agendas. In fact, imperial strategists prefer that target countries become internally divided, even when division exacts a huge toll in innocent lives.
It's all very illegal, but the West is not overly concerned with international sanctions. The West isn't particularly perturbed by the consequent rise of fundamentalism either, because it uses fundamentalist proxies such as al Qaeda and ISIS -- or neo-Nazis -- to globally implement their agendas of destruction.
The pre-planned invasion of Libya is a case in point. Prior to the invasion -- ironically billed as a "humanitarian intervention" -- Libya's government, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, boasted significant achievements, including the following:
*The highest standard of living in Africa
*Human Development Index (HDI), a measure of health, education, and income, ranked above the regional average
* Free public health care, and free public education
* 89% adult literacy rate (with girls outnumbering boys by 10% in secondary and tertiary education)
* Subsidized, affordable food
* Homelessness all but wiped out
Given these very positive metrics, how did the west sell its so-called "humanitarian intervention? Simple. It created a false narrative that demonized Gadaffi as it promulgated unreasonable, evidence-free fear.
Associate university professor and author Maximilian C. Forte rebuts the arsenal of lies promulgated by the West in "The Top Ten Myths in the War Against Libya" . Here is his list of evidence-free accusations: