I think it very possible to disagree with an individual and yet, "respect them. Or has simple civility become wholly impossible? Bill Buckley has dedicated his entire life championing the conservative movement and the cherished ideals that make our ideology great; I find it distasteful that so many on this forum are willing to forego civility because of a disagreement he has over foreign policy. It is quite childish, actually.
Two points:
1. I regard the war for civilization against radical Islam to be the defining issue of the new century. One either understands this, and is prepared to wage war a l'outrance, or one does not, and is, therefore, objectively in league with the enemy. It has been a while coming for me, but I simply cannot see how any rational citizen of a country that is part of Western civilization can fail to realize we are at war with radical Islam. I simply cannot respect those who do not, can not, or refuse, to understand that we are truly engaged in a war to the death. One cannot reason with such people, one cannot even talk with them. They bury their heads in the sand or cover their ears and go LALALALALALALA! Therefore, it becomes impossible even to socialize with them.
This is a graver issue than Nazism or Marxism. No decent person would associate with Nazis or Marxists, and no decent person should associate with those who do not support the war.
2. The fact that we are dealing with those who are beyond the pale does not mean we should be uncivil, in the sense of common politeness and ordinary good manners. However, it does not mean that we need to have any respect for their views whatsoever, regardless how how well they have served in the past. Marshall Petain was a great French general who led the French against the Germans in WWI who deserved respect for that; he was also the collaborator of Vichy who deserved nothing but contempt. Benedict Arnold was a successful American general before he betrayed our cause to the British. The former services do not exonerate the subsequent villany.