Leadership Crisis?

[Pra]

I'm not going to comment as of yet; I want to see what you think.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4467042.stm

[Guderian]

He believes the US is "sliding towards a war with the world of Islam".

This is one of my biggest problems too, how long do you think muslims in the ME are going to sit by while America occupies Iraq? they did not stand aside while the Soviets came to "liberate" Afghanistan. The longer the war in Iraq continues more and more mulims will lose faith in the west.

In a series of speeches Mr Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney and others are attacking the Democrats for political opportunism.

This is what the Bush administration has done from the start, it never addresses the issue at hand but instead puts the blame onto others, or diverts attention to some other scandal. This is a huge weakness, the Bush administration creates problems but cannot solve them, if it can't solve it's own problems how is it going to solve the problem of Iraq or even terrorism? Some claim Bush is a strong president because he acts, and acts decisively, but the problem is he does not think before he acts. Weakness, arrogance and ignorace are not good things coming from the government of the world's only superpower.

[Erik]

This is what the Bush administration has done from the start, it never addresses the issue at hand but instead puts the blame onto others, or diverts attention to some other scandal. This is a huge weakness, the Bush administration creates problems but cannot solve them, if it can't solve it's own problems how is it going to solve the problem of Iraq or even terrorism?

And how can they solve problems if they never take a critical look at their own actions?
Everybody makes mistakes but unlike most people/groups the Bush administration never learns from it's mistakes.
They have taken the stance that learning from mistakes and adjusting your views/tactics (aka "flip-flopping") is a bad thing, but this stance is what is holding them back now.

[Felixion]

Despite all the foibles of Bush, including his glaring inability to speak publicly, I still think the war was in the best interest of the United States. Yes, I know... the original arguement for war has been diluted, but the problem is that Bush didn't make clear all the reasons that justified it, including:

-Not allowing weapons inspections, thereby breaking countless UN resolutions. Those resolutions called for severe action if ignored or broken. The fact that we went in despite not having full UN support is proof positive that the UN is ineffective. It's like a kid in high school with a weekend curfew of 11pm that comes in at 3am and doesn't ever get punished. Pretty soon, that kids' going to ignore the curfew all together, because your parents are all talk.
-Hussein paid cash money to families of suicide bombers in Palestine. That's terrorist support, plain and simple.
-Hussein harbored countless high-level terrorists in his country, such as Abu Zarqawi. Look his name up if you're interested.
-Hussein plotted to kill President Bush, Sr. Now, one thing that enfuriates me is hearing those people that say "We went to war because they tried to kill his daddy." Excuse me, but he's a former President of the United States?! If some rogue country attempted to kill President Carter or Clinton or Ford, I would HOPE that we would kick someone's ass over it!!!
-Hussein terrorized, mutilated and murdered his own people. Often. For instance, take a look at an ESPN report regarding the Iraqi Olympic Teams and how they were brutalized for not competing up to par.

I certainly don't agree with Bush on everything, including the way the FCC is running ramshot over the 1st Amendment and the limiting of stem cell research, but with regards to the war, he's right on target. No pun intended.

-FHoIW

[Pra]

Despite all the foibles of Bush, including his glaring inability to speak publicly, I still think the war was in the best interest of the United States. Yes, I know... the original arguement for war has been diluted, but the problem is that Bush didn't make clear all the reasons that justified it, including:

-Not allowing weapons inspections, thereby breaking countless UN resolutions. Those resolutions called for severe action if ignored or broken. The fact that we went in despite not having full UN support is proof positive that the UN is ineffective. It's like a kid in high school with a weekend curfew of 11pm that comes in at 3am and doesn't ever get punished. Pretty soon, that kids' going to ignore the curfew all together, because your parents are all talk.
-Hussein paid cash money to families of suicide bombers in Palestine. That's terrorist support, plain and simple.
-Hussein harbored countless high-level terrorists in his country, such as Abu Zarqawi. Look his name up if you're interested.
-Hussein plotted to kill President Bush, Sr. Now, one thing that enfuriates me is hearing those people that say "We went to war because they tried to kill his daddy." Excuse me, but he's a former President of the United States?! If some rogue country attempted to kill President Carter or Clinton or Ford, I would HOPE that we would kick someone's ass over it!!!
-Hussein terrorized, mutilated and murdered his own people. Often. For instance, take a look at an ESPN report regarding the Iraqi Olympic Teams and how they were brutalized for not competing up to par.

I certainly don't agree with Bush on everything, including the way the FCC is running ramshot over the 1st Amendment and the limiting of stem cell research, but with regards to the war, he's right on target. No pun intended.

-FHoIW

Wouldn't it be better to make profits some other way?

[Tiwaz]

Despite all the foibles of Bush, including his glaring inability to speak publicly, I still think the war was in the best interest of the United States. Yes, I know... the original arguement for war has been diluted, but the problem is that Bush didn't make clear all the reasons that justified it, including:

-Not allowing weapons inspections, thereby breaking countless UN resolutions. Those resolutions called for severe action if ignored or broken. The fact that we went in despite not having full UN support is proof positive that the UN is ineffective. It's like a kid in high school with a weekend curfew of 11pm that comes in at 3am and doesn't ever get punished. Pretty soon, that kids' going to ignore the curfew all together, because your parents are all talk.
-Hussein paid cash money to families of suicide bombers in Palestine. That's terrorist support, plain and simple.
-Hussein harbored countless high-level terrorists in his country, such as Abu Zarqawi. Look his name up if you're interested.
-Hussein plotted to kill President Bush, Sr. Now, one thing that enfuriates me is hearing those people that say "We went to war because they tried to kill his daddy." Excuse me, but he's a former President of the United States?! If some rogue country attempted to kill President Carter or Clinton or Ford, I would HOPE that we would kick someone's ass over it!!!
-Hussein terrorized, mutilated and murdered his own people. Often. For instance, take a look at an ESPN report regarding the Iraqi Olympic Teams and how they were brutalized for not competing up to par.

I certainly don't agree with Bush on everything, including the way the FCC is running ramshot over the 1st Amendment and the limiting of stem cell research, but with regards to the war, he's right on target. No pun intended.

-FHoIW

You might want to check the current debate in debate forum.

Here is little summary of parts of it for you though.

-UN thing does not hold water. USA is NOT any authority to make decisions on behalf of UN regarding violations of ANY resolutions. Only UNSC has authority to decide that action will be taken regarding any resolution.

-USA is paying money to Israel some of which is used in ways which can only be considered to be acts of terrorism.

-Can you prove Zarqawi or others were in Iraq? Or if they were there that they were there with knowledge and acceptance of Saddam?

-Plotted to kill someone... And never actually did any of that. Of course USA is directly or indirectly responsible for how many similar actions? For example Allende who met his fate in a coup supported by USA...

-Do you know how many of your "allies" does the same stuff? Hell, apparently your OWN TROOPS do it at whim. And you actually transport people abroad to be mutilated and tortured.

Very, very hypocrite stance you have there. "It's bad unless we do it in which case it is acceptable"

Now Bush in his infinite stupidity is destabilising Middle East, the major oil producer for notable part of the world. He is INCREASING the threat of terrorism. Indeed, he is "right on the target" on this war. Only problem is, it's totally wrong target.


Oh yes regarding the oil... Have you ever heard about something called "controlling source of strategic supplies".

[Trey]

-Do you know how many of your "allies" does the same stuff? Hell, apparently your OWN TROOPS do it at whim. And you actually transport people abroad to be mutilated and tortured.

O yes, the Big Bad US goes and tortures people left and right. Did you know that some of the "torture" in guantanamo was a prison guard picking up a koran, and also remember those riots where a guard supposedly flushed a koran down a toilet, the whole muslim world started to riot. Name any other religion that would do that. None would. And anyways those "allies" are the israelis, and they dont do that anymore, to bad for PR, and not the most effective way to get info.

-So you're suggesting because the UNSC doesn't take the necessary action no one should? Hahaha, wow.
-Are you actually trying to compare money that we give to Israel that through a long process makes its way into the hands of terrorists is at ALL similar to paying terrorists to practice terrorism? Nice try.
-I do have evidence. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3483089.stm
-So you're saying that because people died at fault of America, when someone tries to kill our president no action should be taken? Scary.
-Do you have any evidence of our marines practicing genocide, mutilation, or torture? Didn't think so.


Nice try, do some research next time before calling somone a hypocrite.

Its funny how people are always screaming american ignorance, american ignorance, when they are more ignorant than most americans than i know.

[Ummon]

The man must resign. The sooner the better. He won't, by the way, but that's what he should do.

[Felixion]

Make profits? What do you mean? The Iraq war was not started to 'make profits'.

Nothing demonstrates the political and moral bankruptcy of the American liberal left more clearly than the current attempt to portray military action against Iraq as "for the oil". At first this seemed to be only a claim by the usual suspects that quickly moved onto certain editorial pages. But it entered the Presidential campaign with Congressman Dennis Kucinich' s preposterous claim on "Meet the Press" that Iraq contains five trillion dollars' worth of oil, syllogistically followed by the allegation that such an amount of oil is the obvious reason for an invasion. The allegation was countered on the program forcefully by Richard Perle, but we can expect to hear it again. Not only is the allegation base, but the logic is flawed and the numbers are wrong. How Congressman Kucinich could come up with 5 trillion dollars for the value of oil in Iraq is a mystery. The flagrant misrepresentation in this assertion seems to be an attempt to trivialize an invasion as motivated by a business decision on behalf of one of the left's favorite scapegoats - the oil business. Such a characterization fails on the basis of being an extremely bad business decision.

All wars are fought for economic reasons if staying alive and not being enslaved are included as economic benefits even though difficult to quantify in dollars and cents. An invasion "for the oil", however, implies an objective which is tangible, quantifiable and has a price posted on a daily basis. A war "for the oil" thus can be subjected to a cost-benefit analysis. Iraq produces a bit more than 2 million barrels of oil per day (bopd) now. This production rate fluctuates in a range of about 0.5 million bopd depending on the mood of Saddam, how he wishes to impact the oil price and various actions of the UN. The actual amount can only be estimated because the amount of smuggled oil is not known accurately. Although Iraq is a member of OPEC, its production rate is allocated by the UN and is not part of the OPEC quota system. The most common concern regarding the possible effect of an invasion on oil production is that oil operations will be disrupted during military action. Disruption probably will reduce world supplies and drive oil prices up on the world markets for a short-term. A less probable, but nevertheless real, concern is that Saddam will sabotage or contaminate the fields and cause supply disruptions and higher prices for a medium to long-term. So the most likely outcome of an Iraqi invasion is a reduction of supplies and increased prices; clearly an additional cost attributable to an invasion, not a benefit, and exactly contrary to a claim that the invasion is "for the oil". If we consider a post-invasion situation in which the disruptions and price effects of the invasion have passed and damage to the fields has somehow been prevented, Iraq would again be producing at about its current rate. It produces at that rate now. Where is the gain?

Estimates of the costs to the government of the United States for an invasion of Iraq seem to be mostly between $50 billion to $200 billion. If we invade Iraq for oil, the U.S. government must be able to derive a benefit from the oil greater than this cost. What is not clear is how Washington would be paid back for the war. Governments can charge taxes and fees. The United States will not be intending to occupy Iraq, but to establish a new government. The new government will be expected to honor international commitments and contracts, particularly debt repayment. Iraq owes Russia about $8 billion. The United States has no taxing or fee-charging authority in Iraq. If the United States did, by brute force, impose a tax on Iraqi crude, it could not be an add-on to the market price at which crude is sold in the international market or no one would buy it. If that crude is taxed on the net to Iraq, it must be a fee taken from the Iraqi government share and could not be more than about $3 per barrel without imposing an intolerable burden on a country which the United States will be trying to stabilize economically and politically. The United States government currently pays about 4 percent for long-term (10-year) money; that corresponds to $4 billion per year for a 100-billion-dollar war. A $3-per-barrel tax will bring in about $2.4 billion per year; not enough even to pay the interest on the cost of the war. But suppose American companies are given the contracts to operate the fields. The United States government can still only recoup cost by taxing the oil, or income thereon, produced by the U.S. companies. Russian and French companies have interests which would be honored for diplomatic reasons. A reasonable limit of about $3 per barrel still applies and in this case it would not be on all the oil but only on the part which American companies produce so the gain would be even less than in the case cited above. Investment required to find and develop oil supplies is generally in the range of $10,000 to $15,000 per daily barrel of production in the United States and $5000 to $12,000 internationally. Some production can be developed in Saudi Arabia for as low as $3000, but foreign companies are not allowed to operate in Saudi Arabia. For a total investment probably between $10 billion and $20 billion, supplies can be developed elsewhere to replace the 2 million bopd of Iraqi production; much cheaper than the cost of an invasion and without the risks and unpleasant aspects of military action.


Could we increase production in Iraq after an invasion? Yes, but that increase would also require investment just as it would anywhere. We can make that investment in Iraq if the opportunity is available or elsewhere if it is not. But in Iraq any investment for oil would be increased by the large sunk cost of the war. That cost is not justified by the amount of oil production. Nothing is changed by an invasion and the cost of the war is still a large cost without any return based on oil. From a political and diplomatic standpoint, the United States will probably not be able to impose any taxes or fees on the production nor take any competitive advantage for American companies. As noted above, immediate objectives will be to encourage formation of a stable government and political system. Control and administration of the oil industry will probably remain in the hands of Iraqis. First priority will be to rehabilitate the existing wells, fields, facilities, and infrastructure that are quite dilapidated after years of isolation from modern technology, services, and materials. Except for the costs of this rehabilitation, oil income will probably be used for general governmental purposes to rebuild the country and its infrastructure and services. Therefore, any expansion into development of new fields will probably require foreign capital and a significant increase of activity by foreign companies. Privatization of the fields is not a practical possibility, so foreign investment and activity will be in the form of contracts for which the operating, fiscal, procurement, labor, liability, insurance, accounting, legal and regulatory terms must be established. Such a process is subject to lengthy political and bureaucratic delays.

So not only can the United States not receive any direct payback of the cost of the war from the oil, but any significant increase of Iraqi supplies will probably not be realized for a few, or possibly several, years. As a business decision, invading Iraq "for the oil" is a loser, a big loser. Anyone who would propose, in a corporate boardroom, invading Iraq for the oil would probably find his career rather short. No, the slogan "no war for oil" is a blatant misrepresentation propagated for political reasons.

-FHoIW.

[Pra]

Make profits? What do you mean? The Iraq war was not started to 'make profits'.

Nothing demonstrates the political and moral bankruptcy of the American liberal left more clearly than the current attempt to portray military action against Iraq as "for the oil". At first this seemed to be only a claim by the usual suspects that quickly moved onto certain editorial pages. But it entered the Presidential campaign with Congressman Dennis Kucinich' s preposterous claim on "Meet the Press" that Iraq contains five trillion dollars' worth of oil, syllogistically followed by the allegation that such an amount of oil is the obvious reason for an invasion. The allegation was countered on the program forcefully by Richard Perle, but we can expect to hear it again. Not only is the allegation base, but the logic is flawed and the numbers are wrong. How Congressman Kucinich could come up with 5 trillion dollars for the value of oil in Iraq is a mystery. The flagrant misrepresentation in this assertion seems to be an attempt to trivialize an invasion as motivated by a business decision on behalf of one of the left's favorite scapegoats - the oil business. Such a characterization fails on the basis of being an extremely bad business decision.

All wars are fought for economic reasons if staying alive and not being enslaved are included as economic benefits even though difficult to quantify in dollars and cents. An invasion "for the oil", however, implies an objective which is tangible, quantifiable and has a price posted on a daily basis. A war "for the oil" thus can be subjected to a cost-benefit analysis. Iraq produces a bit more than 2 million barrels of oil per day (bopd) now. This production rate fluctuates in a range of about 0.5 million bopd depending on the mood of Saddam, how he wishes to impact the oil price and various actions of the UN. The actual amount can only be estimated because the amount of smuggled oil is not known accurately. Although Iraq is a member of OPEC, its production rate is allocated by the UN and is not part of the OPEC quota system. The most common concern regarding the possible effect of an invasion on oil production is that oil operations will be disrupted during military action. Disruption probably will reduce world supplies and drive oil prices up on the world markets for a short-term. A less probable, but nevertheless real, concern is that Saddam will sabotage or contaminate the fields and cause supply disruptions and higher prices for a medium to long-term. So the most likely outcome of an Iraqi invasion is a reduction of supplies and increased prices; clearly an additional cost attributable to an invasion, not a benefit, and exactly contrary to a claim that the invasion is "for the oil". If we consider a post-invasion situation in which the disruptions and price effects of the invasion have passed and damage to the fields has somehow been prevented, Iraq would again be producing at about its current rate. It produces at that rate now. Where is the gain?

Estimates of the costs to the government of the United States for an invasion of Iraq seem to be mostly between $50 billion to $200 billion. If we invade Iraq for oil, the U.S. government must be able to derive a benefit from the oil greater than this cost. What is not clear is how Washington would be paid back for the war. Governments can charge taxes and fees. The United States will not be intending to occupy Iraq, but to establish a new government. The new government will be expected to honor international commitments and contracts, particularly debt repayment. Iraq owes Russia about $8 billion. The United States has no taxing or fee-charging authority in Iraq. If the United States did, by brute force, impose a tax on Iraqi crude, it could not be an add-on to the market price at which crude is sold in the international market or no one would buy it. If that crude is taxed on the net to Iraq, it must be a fee taken from the Iraqi government share and could not be more than about $3 per barrel without imposing an intolerable burden on a country which the United States will be trying to stabilize economically and politically. The United States government currently pays about 4 percent for long-term (10-year) money; that corresponds to $4 billion per year for a 100-billion-dollar war. A $3-per-barrel tax will bring in about $2.4 billion per year; not enough even to pay the interest on the cost of the war. But suppose American companies are given the contracts to operate the fields. The United States government can still only recoup cost by taxing the oil, or income thereon, produced by the U.S. companies. Russian and French companies have interests which would be honored for diplomatic reasons. A reasonable limit of about $3 per barrel still applies and in this case it would not be on all the oil but only on the part which American companies produce so the gain would be even less than in the case cited above. Investment required to find and develop oil supplies is generally in the range of $10,000 to $15,000 per daily barrel of production in the United States and $5000 to $12,000 internationally. Some production can be developed in Saudi Arabia for as low as $3000, but foreign companies are not allowed to operate in Saudi Arabia. For a total investment probably between $10 billion and $20 billion, supplies can be developed elsewhere to replace the 2 million bopd of Iraqi production; much cheaper than the cost of an invasion and without the risks and unpleasant aspects of military action.


Could we increase production in Iraq after an invasion? Yes, but that increase would also require investment just as it would anywhere. We can make that investment in Iraq if the opportunity is available or elsewhere if it is not. But in Iraq any investment for oil would be increased by the large sunk cost of the war. That cost is not justified by the amount of oil production. Nothing is changed by an invasion and the cost of the war is still a large cost without any return based on oil. From a political and diplomatic standpoint, the United States will probably not be able to impose any taxes or fees on the production nor take any competitive advantage for American companies. As noted above, immediate objectives will be to encourage formation of a stable government and political system. Control and administration of the oil industry will probably remain in the hands of Iraqis. First priority will be to rehabilitate the existing wells, fields, facilities, and infrastructure that are quite dilapidated after years of isolation from modern technology, services, and materials. Except for the costs of this rehabilitation, oil income will probably be used for general governmental purposes to rebuild the country and its infrastructure and services. Therefore, any expansion into development of new fields will probably require foreign capital and a significant increase of activity by foreign companies. Privatization of the fields is not a practical possibility, so foreign investment and activity will be in the form of contracts for which the operating, fiscal, procurement, labor, liability, insurance, accounting, legal and regulatory terms must be established. Such a process is subject to lengthy political and bureaucratic delays.

So not only can the United States not receive any direct payback of the cost of the war from the oil, but any significant increase of Iraqi supplies will probably not be realized for a few, or possibly several, years. As a business decision, invading Iraq "for the oil" is a loser, a big loser. Anyone who would propose, in a corporate boardroom, invading Iraq for the oil would probably find his career rather short. No, the slogan "no war for oil" is a blatant misrepresentation propagated for political reasons.

-FHoIW.

I'm not exactly a conforming liberal. I'm a profiteering maniacal misanthropist-that is I want all the money for my country...all of it. I have no feeling of compassion for any other country but my God-Blessed US of frickin' A...

With that said, is it sensible to invade a country, an invasion that is continuing to syphon away our monetary and human resources like a Hummer to gasoline? While we are in a 'recession'-I'm sure you do remember Bush himself refering to this-wouldn't it be better to try and consolidate our economy and be the fiscal conservatives that were originally the Republican Party?

[Guderian]

I'm not exactly a conforming liberal. I'm a profiteering maniacal misanthropist-that is I want all the money for my country...all of it. I have no feeling of compassion for any other country but my God-Blessed US of frickin' A...

I can only hope that is sarcasm. If not

[Pra]

I can only hope that is sarcasm. If not

I was going for a Johnathan Swift-type tone.

[Guderian]

You had me worried there for a moment Mr Rajinikanth :sweatingb

[Felixion]

-So you're suggesting because the UNSC doesn't take the necessary action no one should? Hahaha, wow.
-Are you actually trying to compare money that we give to Israel that through a long process makes its way into the hands of terrorists is at ALL similar to paying terrorists to practice terrorism? Nice try.
-I do have evidence. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3483089.stm
-So you're saying that because people died at fault of America, when someone tries to kill our president no action should be taken? Scary.
-Do you have any evidence of our marines practicing genocide, mutilation, or torture? Didn't think so.


Nice try, do some research next time before calling somone a hypocrite.

[Tiwaz]

-So you're suggesting because the UNSC doesn't take the necessary action no one should? Hahaha, wow.
-Are you actually trying to compare money that we give to Israel that through a long process makes its way into the hands of terrorists is at ALL similar to paying terrorists to practice terrorism? Nice try.
-I do have evidence. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3483089.stm
-So you're saying that because people died at fault of America, when someone tries to kill our president no action should be taken? Scary.
-Do you have any evidence of our marines practicing genocide, mutilation, or torture? Didn't think so.


Nice try, do some research next time before calling somone a hypocrite.

-EXACTLY! You signed and ratified, with huge majority in congress, the UN charter which explicitly says you cannot invade other nations. UNSC does nothing = nobody does anything.
-Why not compare money you give to Israel? Does it not go to help upkeep gunships which fire missiles indiscriminately inside large human groups, or bulldozers used to level homes of people etc etc etc. Oh, and to build a big fence on someone elses land. How would you like if your neighbour decided to save his plot and build his nice, big fence on your property...
-As for your "evidence"... Perhaps you should have read it more closely. He is assumed to have moved to Iraq in 2001. However, place where he fled was north Iraq which effectively was out of hands of Hussein. Those kurdish areas where he was hiding were controlled by US buddies the Kurds.
-We have evidence of marines practicing what is torture in the infamous prison case. We also have rather credible cases for USA moving prisoners to other nations where they are tortured.
"Rendition" or something was the term. Check human watch organisation or just google.

http://home.earthlink.net/~acisney2/id92.html
http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/2003/usa01282003.html
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4999148/site/newsweek/
http://www.world-crisis.com/more/188_0_1_0_M/
http://www.slweekly.com/editorial/20...2004-06-17.cfm


Hypocrite you are, hypocrite you shall remain. Or at least sheep which follows blindly and buys the propaganda from your goverment.

[Francisco Montana]

We're in a culture war and some want to ignore this fact.

When the dust settles I honestly believe historians will be fairly generous to W and the plate he was handed just a year into his 2 terms.

It's so easy to sit here and monday-morning quarterback. I knew this was going to happen the day we went into Afganistan.

The modern media-driven-attention span just doesn't have what it takes to see the tough times through.

I think history will show he made some profound steps in the middle-east and for better or for worse, moved things forward.

Something that had been pushed off to each following generation for a century now.

Summary IMO, we just couldn't keep kicking this can down the road for our kids this time.

Plain and simple.

[Prince Kassad]

This "leadership crisis" in the presidency is nothing new. Every president after Eisenhower has gotten torpedoed in his second term.

[imb39]

It's at times like this I really appreciate the game EU2. Here we have a situation where an invasion was launched with no justification. The result - malcontent at home and malcontent in the occupied territory.

If yoy want a more considered opinion, then read the debate forums. They (obviously...) say exactly what I think over the matter.
----------
Also everyone should remain civil, even in a debate about as serious a subject as war. It does nothing for anyones' arguments when disrepsect is shown.

[Pra]

Also everyone should remain civil, even in a debate about as serious a subject as war. It does nothing for anyones' arguments when disrepsect is shown.

If that is directed towards me, I apologize. My style of debating is flawed in this respect then.

BTW, Tiwaz try to keep it more civil.