I agree with Beck

Last night on OReilly, Glen Beck stated that he expects the action against Libya to end poorly for the US and our allies.
Lets consider, Libya was a sponsor of terrorism in the middle east for many years. They were responsible for attacks in Berlin and the Lockerbie bombing. Certainly they are not angels, and as deserving as Iraq for a good ass whooping. We should have assassinated Qdaffy in the 80's.
Libya in 2011 though was at least temporarily not a threat to the US. With a civil war boiling Qdaffy would be unable to carry out much internationally right now.
We don't know a lot about the revolutionaries there. I won't call them freedom fighters, what little I have seen says that if they gain control they will most likely be as bad as Saddam, or Khomeini.
The world is full of despots. Of the 190+ nations in the world, the largest portion of them are ruled by dictators of one form or another. Some of them are benevolent, many are like Kim Mentally Il or Amalamadingdong. The problem is we cannot spend all our days kicking their asses, especially when whom ever replaces them will be just as bad.
In the end, our involvement will result in another attack on the US. Our administration of a no fly zone in Iraq didn't work out well, Clinton bombed Saddam on several occasions, and all it did was strengthen their resolve.
If Barry the bone head really wanted to accomplish something on his home continent, he should have gone after the Somali pirates, a force that is a threat to US interests and property.
We should not have become militarily involved in Libya. We have no real justification. Supplying weapons to the revolutionaries maybe, because muslims killing muslims is a good thing.