While it appears that France and Britain are taking the lead in imposing a no-fly zone over Libya, this dramatic action — growing out of a United Nations resolution — has implications for the U.S.

Some random thoughts to kick start a (hopefully civil) discussion:

* If you believe that a no-fly zone is necessary, explain why. If you believe that a no-fly zone is not necessary, or alternately a dangerous first step to escalating the conflict between pro-democracy rebels and Libyan strongman Muammar el-Qaddafi’s vastly superior forces, explain why.

* What should the U.S.’s involvement be? Or should it be involved at all? After all, what has Libya done to the U.S.? American security surely is not at risk.

* The Obama administration, possibly sensing public fatigue over two wars and antipathy about a third, has not taken the lead in pushing back against Qaddafi. Do you support this position? Why? If not, why? Should Congress debate and approve U.S. involvement or does the Bosnia precedent apply?

* Arab nations, for the most part, have incompetent armies and air forces. What should their
involvement be, and shouldn’t they in fact be taking the lead?

* UN-mandated missions have a long history of dragging on. How long should long be in this case? What should the ultimate goal of the no-fly zone be? To give the rebels time to regroup and go back on the offensive? To give breathing room to establish an independent eastern Libyan republic? To topple the Qaddafi regime?

Also, feel free to pose questions of your own.