'Martin', much of this is uncontroversial. Which is why, while I fully agree with Barry's basic position, I wouldn't have put it quite like he does ("solidarity or anti-imperialism") - we are anti-imperialists (which Barry agrees, obviously).
What's not clear from your contribution, however, is whether you are saying "Stop the bombing"/"No intervention" or not. Can your clarify?
The idea that the Egyptian working class was going to intervene in the time frame available to stop Qaddafi crushing Benghazi is fantasy politics.
On the persecution of black workers, see the interview republished here. I'm not saying I trust this totally, or think it represents the whole picture, but it strengthens my point that there is little evidence that such racism defines the rebellion.
Guenter, the point is that war is "the continuation of politics by other means". It is a matter of principle not to give support to a bourgeois force in a war unless it is the leadership of a mass popular movement (eg a national liberation struggle). But whether to sharply denounce and oppose a war depends on its character, ie the politics of which it is a continuation. In Vietnam the US was occupying and slaughtering to deny the Vietnamese people self-determination. In this case they are carrying out a limited military action to prevent Qaddafi crushing the rebels (yes, for their own reasons). Not the same thing! Judge concretely.
Yes, we will continue to concentrate on killing capitalism! But whereas bombing can't liberate the working class from capitalism, it did stop Qaddafi crushing the rebels. Do you really think it would have been better if that hadn't happened?