I'm not calling it an uprising because I don't think the sentiment is universal. These aren't real protests, but popular revolts.
A key element of Mubarak's fall was his ethical distance from most Egyptians. He was a personal ethical egoist and that sentiment doesn't play well with like 80% (or more) of the people. People of divergent values will nonetheless unite over a sense of common emotional disgust.
I don't think that's the case in Libya. The Libya case is very unusual because it's an instance of radical progressivism at its effective nationalist zenith. We see a leader who at once rules by consensus and brute force -- consensus when it is available, brute force when his position is threatened by a leader of superior ability with regard to an issue. Gadhafi is not a team player, however he does a very good job of looking like one. But he also rules somewhat like a king: he seems more like a person who receives requests for specific opportunities to act, and determines whether or not to grant them based on their qualifications, than a person who takes credit for others' accomplishments. He is an enabler who tightly controls opportunities and zealously guards against people who would take control of these opportunities. In this sense, he is anti-free-market because he insists on keeping opportunity control centralized, rather than dictated by wealth and resource holdings (although he has plenty of both).
While Gadhafi is indeed eccentric, his paranoia and craziness is balanced by his son, who is notably more level headed if no less ruthless. I don't see his son as particularly prone to mistakes like his father. His son IS LSI -- a simple VI analysis reveals that unambiguously -- and moreover seems at least as reasonable, in essence, as Hamid Karzai.
Silly quibbles over sports game outcomes reflect a deeper consequentialist sentiment: the continuous specter of danger demands a ruthless series of signals that one is not vulnerable. The game outcomes could conceivably be considered a sign of weakness (paranoia, I know) and so they are to be controlled to prevent the embarrassment of the head of state. Of course the outcome could have , but consequentialists are nothing if not shameless.
Saadi is a smart guy, and because of that I firmly expect him to keep his forces together. This is not to say that Gadhafi will not be defeated -- 10k soldiers is nothing against what will probably be an organized citizens militia of several times that number in a number of weeks -- but it looks unlikely that his defeat will be quick. The U.S. will probably not intervene unless asked directly by a commander-in-chief of this militia, so for the short term the regime may have the benefit of its aircraft. There is also the matter of his considerable oil wealth, which the family is apparently already putting to use paying African mercenaries. Not to mention that that wealth won't exactly be seeping away with export money headed directly to his coffers.
There seems to be a certain volatility in the oil markets. Is there a possibility OPEC will leave any supply disruptions in Libya be as a means of punishing the Western democracies for their support of these revolts?
At any rate, more democratic control of nations probably means a stronger UN and a weaker U.S.. The situation draws closer to the -- inevitable -- reigning in of the American Christian Right by regulations of U.S. military activity, perhaps by targeted sanctions. The democratization of Earth will unleash a new form of international rivalry in which more socially progressed democracies look down on less so progressed democracies, as is already hinted at by U.S. conservative fears of/contempt for Europeans.