The differnence between you and I however, is that when it's the United States vs _____, I supported Clinton and even Jimmy as the Head of State and representative of this Nation to the world.
When the shit's already in the fan, I don't crawfish because I suddenly don't like the smell.
Otherwise, I don't support this administration as anything more than the lesser of two evils as choices in the last two elections.
As I did while I served. But since my active duty and even my inactive reserve status have long since ended, I'm not bound by the part of the oath which requires "...that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me..." . I still, however feel obligated to honor the the first part of the oath which required "...that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same...". As far as I' concerned, its the price of citizenship.
As for the military, under the UCMJ 809.ART.90 (20) members of the military are obligated to follow the LAWFUL orders issued by the President and superior officers. Unlawful orders are those orders which are contrary to the principles laid down in the UCMJ or the Constitution or federal law. As such members of the military are not obligated to follow those orders.
Now, since the Constitution makes treaties which the US is signatory to "the law of the land", in ordering US forces to invade and occupy Iraq, President Bush likely violated a number of treaties the US is signatory to, including the Geneva Conventions and the Nuremberg Conventions. The latter stating that, "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for accomplishment of any of the forgoing." constitute a crime against peace. And of course, there is the UN Charter, Article 51 which outlines the criteria for national self-defense...none of which Iraq met.
I never denounced the invasion of Iraq, because I "...didn't like the smell...". I denounced and protested against it because it was illegal and had absolutely nothing to do with taking down Al Qaeda. I stand opposed to the occupation of Iraq as it failed, utterly, to meet the standards laid out in the Geneva Conventions for the responsibilities of a belligerent occupying power. I stand opposed to Bush's War for its continuing and ongoing betrayal of the trust of the men and women who put on the uniform of America's armed forces.
After 9/11, the Bush administration had my full support as it went into Afghanistan to route out that nest of vipers. But they took their eye off of the real enemy, and went haring off into Iraq so Bush could work off his chubby for Saddam. As result, we have Al Qaeda reconstituted in Pakistan as, if not stronger, than before 9/11...Depending on who you believe. Osama bin Laden remains free and at large, this despite Bush's "dead-or-alive" rhetoric. The Taliban are regaining control in Afghanistan. The whole region is becoming more unstable the longer our forces remain in Iraq.
So...Continue to support the present course if that's what you want. Just be careful though as you may get what you wish for. And we'll all be the worse off for it.