On the Libyan Question

Libya, what should be done. Shall we protect our Democratic Brethren from the cruel reign of the Autocrat-Madman Muammar Gaddafi? Or shall we allow them to battle on their own?
Did we fight on our own? In 1776, I mean...didn't the French help us overthrow the almighty British? Yes. In fact, beyond just throwing money at us, the French actually sent troops and the Lieutenant General Jean Rochambaeu. What's more? Rochambaeu's strategy and tactics were just what the Americans needed to get their A-game on. Why can't this happen in Libya? Why can't the Americans participate in the fight against Gaddafi?
Well, there are a few reasons. One, we're still in two other wars. Two, have we already forgotten Vietnam and, more importantly, Afghanistan in the '90s? And third, we already tried in the '80s.
The United States is spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan. (this is a guess, but it sounds just about right, right?) Moreover, we're in middle of an economic meltdown...can we really afford another war/dependent? No.
But, are we philosophically obliged to serve these people? Were we philosophically obliged to serve the Vietnamese people? Uhh...are the two situations related? Vietnam was a battle between Ho Chi Minh's Communists and the Southern Capitalists. There was no single, domineering government. Put another way, both sides were even. The "Empire of Vietnam" had the US and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam had the Chinese and the Soviets. This was a global war, not just local unrest like in Libya, today. Note: officials are saying Gaddafi has lost his "legitimacy" not his "sovereignty." These are two completely different things. Libya is still a sovereign country and, thus, the UN and likewise the US should not interfere.
This statement might sound a little weak at first, but consider the Afghan Civil War in the '90s and the Soviet War a few years before that. In both cases, the United States might have picked the right side...but what were its repercussions? A Terrorist group that sponsored an attack of unprecedented destruction. Don't understand? The United States sponsored the Taliban during the anti-Soviet campaign and the Communist regime that took over. And, guess what? The al-Qaeda, the assholes who planned out 9/11, are affiliated with Taliban. So, basically, the US shot its own toe.  
But, how about 1986 with Operation El Derado Canyon? See, after a Gaddafi-sponsored airplane attack over Scotland, Thatcher and Reagan began a bombing spree over Libya. The deathrate was incredible. What's it prove: violence begets violence. In fact, these attacks failed to kill Gaddafi, but got his two little children. "Thatcher is violent." (Gaddafi on the Attacks)
So, should the US support the anti-Gaddafi forces? For God's sake, no. That would be political and economic suicide. But, that doesn't mean we shouldn't engage in Humanitarian aid...or in creating a no-fly zone. Violence only begets violence.