Based on Pres. Obama's standard for when the US should intervene in the internal business of another country, despite that country posing zero threat to the US on any level, there are many countries around the world where we should be lobbing cruise missiles and pretending to care about the people besides Libya.
The best that I can tell, Obama's doctrine is to one: ignore human-rights hot spots, especially in Islamic/Arabic countries, until the international community notices it for political purposes and starts to wonder when the US is going to do something. Step two: call a hastily put-together press conference and act like we've been on top of the situation all along and state that "all options are on the table". Step three: wait until there is an international political consensus, ignore strident domestic opposition to intervention, then attack that country in ways that make no sense whatsoever.
Based on this doctrine of meddling in the affairs of other countries, we should have invaded North Korea, Cuba, Somalia, The Sudan, Ivory Coast, Myanmar, Chad, Laos, Cameroon, etc. Are you getting my point?
The countries in whose affairs Obama decides to meddle seem entirely arbitrary and political. Is this what we want in a President? Agree or not with Bush on Iraq, but at least he and the rest of the modern world believed there were WMD's and that Iraq and Afghanistan together with Iran made the nexus of terrorism exportation which threatened the West. I can't think of a single good reason to have attacked Libya.