Progressive people are divided over whether to support a no-fly zone over Libya as a means of supporting the anti-Gadaffi revolution. The Libyan resistance is itself divided on this issue, so for many of us, it's difficult to know who to support.
If you're on the Avaaz mailing list, you've received an urgent request to speak out in favour. Anti-war activists, however, are lining up against.
I was surprised that Avaaz didn't have a more historic view, understanding the long history of Western nations supporting what appears to be a resistance movement, but is in fact a counter-revolutionary party friendly to Western interests. A no-fly zone will not support the Libyan people's revolution. It will ultimately strengthen Gaddafi - and kill Libyans.
John Hilary in The Guardian: Internet activists should be careful what they wish for in Libya: Calls for a no-fly zone over Libya ignore the perils of intervention. Long-term solutions aren't as simple as the click of a mouse
Simon Jenkins, The Guardian: 'No-fly zone' is a euphemism for war. We'd be mad to try it: Cameron's urge to dust himself in military glory may be strong, but he should not interfere in the Libyan rebels' cause
Robert Fisk in The Independent: America's secret plan to arm Libya's rebels: Obama asks Saudis to airlift weapons into Benghazi
My friend Dr. J at your heart's on the left has a good summary of why people of peace and conscience should oppose a a no-fly zone. In short, a no-fly zone would kill Libyans, strengthen Gaddafi, undermine the Libyan revolution, provide a cover for US imperialism, and provide a cover for yet more US-led war.
Dr J: 5 reasons to oppose "no-fly zones" in Libya.