Goddamnit Van.
Key differences include:
1) This intervention is supported by the U.N. The U.S. is not waging an illegal war, in other words.
2) The motivation behind this intervention isn't revenge (oil). Even with solid evidence, revenge doesn't win you points amongst your peers; and there most certainly was not solid evidence.
People were upset with the States (over Iraq) because the motion to wage war was dismissed by the U.N. The States went ahead and did it anyway, with fabricated evidence.
People are not upset with the States over Libya because the motion to wage war (with the no-fly zone) was supported by the U.N. In fact, iirc, noone voted against the motion (though Germany, China, and Russia? abstained from voting). So this time, the States went about this the right way; and tbh, I doubt the attacks would've been ordered had the U.N. disagreed, as there was nothing to really be gained (remember, America liked Gaddafi).
Not only that, but the States have faded from center stage, allowing NATO to take charge of the operation. It's not "America's war" this time around - it's the Western World's.
I know you're hardcore republican, and I'm well aware we all have our confirmation biases (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias), but for the love of lucifer, don't form opinions without adequate information.