Actually I've been busy writing up interviews and reports from our tour with Egyptian the trade unionists (which I imagine you would agree is important). However, my only excuse is my poor memory. The article is now up on the website. I apologise for the delay.
I don't accept that the US is on the edges of fascism or anything like it. You can see that by the fact that the US labour movement exists, and is under no threat of being annihilated. It's weak position stems from its unwillingness to fight and the fact that is tied to a right-wing bourgeois "liberal" party - not primarily from state repression, let alone being broken up by a mass petty bourgeois mobilisation.
The Weimar Republic, particularly by the end of the 1920s, was far more repressive and authoritarian than the US is today. Trotsky's point was that despite this it represented something different for the working class than Nazism, whose entire purpose was to destroy all workers' organisations, did.
But it's different outside the US itself? Yes, sure. But even in Iraq, which the US actually invaded and occupied, unleashing a sectarian civil war, there is some space for the workers to organise - much more than under Saddam Hussein. (Which isn't to say we didn't not oppose the Iraq war - we've explained why it was different from Libya.)
No one has said that the Western powers' motivation is to protect workers' movements or "bring democracy". Don't be ridiculous. All we've said is that it would be worse if Qaddafi had been able to crush the rebellion, and therefore we won't denounce the intervention which stopped that.