"The burden is on us," he said. "We are responsible for the debate about whether the sacrifices we are asking our young people make are worthy of their sacrifice."
The U.S. casualty totals in Iraq - nearly 2,800 dead and more than 20,000 wounded - "is the true cost of our ignorance (of war)," Ritter said.
While the general sentiment of the more than 150 people who attended the lecture was against the war in Iraq, Ritter said that they shouldn't be fooled by opinion polls that say more than 60 percent of Americans are against the war.
"Sixty-five percent may be against the war in Iraq, but don't think this means that 65 percent are against war itself," he said. "If everything worked right in Iraq, we wouldn't be have this debate now. All this means is 65 percent of Americans are against losing."
Before the Iraq invasion, Ritter was one of the most prominent critics of the Bush administration's claims that there were nuclear, chemical and biological weapons in Iraq.
Considering that most of what Ritter said about the lack of weapons in Iraq has been proven accurate, he said that he hoped that it wouldn't be as easy for the news media to belittle his views on Iran.
"I have the benefit of history," he said. "It won't be as easy to dismiss it."
Ritter says plans for a U.S. attack on suspected nuclear production sites in Iran have been made, despite the recent determination by the International Atomic Energy Agency that there isn't enough evidence that Iran is making components for a nuclear weapon.
"We have excellent intelligence on Iran," said Ritter, "but the truth is not conducive to achieving the (Bush administration's) goal of regime change."
Ritter said that Iran is more concerned about a resurgent Iraq than about Israel. He also said that while he dislikes the regime in Iran, during his last visit there, in September, he was greeted warmly by ordinary Iranians.
"Iran is not black and white. It's not good against evil. It's gray. Very gray," said Ritter. "If you want to solve the problem (of Iran possibly building nuclear weapons), you need to talk about genuine diplomacy and we haven't even begun to do it."
Will there be an attack? Ritter said he hopes there won't, but if there is, he said that if Americans think what's happening in Iraq is bad, a war with Iran will be far worse.
"Congress has pretty much capitulated," said Ritter. "The public debate is over on Iran. Seventy percent of Americans says Iran is trying to get nuclear weapons, so the Bush administration doesn't have to sell this war. We're in a very dangerous climate right now."
While Galbraith disagreed with Ritter's assessment, saying he has hope "there will be a different Congress soon," Ritter is convinced that an attack on Iran is imminent.
"The new National Intelligence Estimate reaffirms the Bush administration's prerogative to intervene in any country it deems to be a threat, and the country that's named the most is Iran," said Ritter. "And if we use nuclear weapons in Iran, this game will not end until some Islamic group detonates a nuclear weapon in this country. Which city are we prepared to lose if that happens?"
The U.S. casualty totals in Iraq - nearly 2,800 dead and more than 20,000 wounded - "is the true cost of our ignorance (of war)," Ritter said.
While the general sentiment of the more than 150 people who attended the lecture was against the war in Iraq, Ritter said that they shouldn't be fooled by opinion polls that say more than 60 percent of Americans are against the war.
"Sixty-five percent may be against the war in Iraq, but don't think this means that 65 percent are against war itself," he said. "If everything worked right in Iraq, we wouldn't be have this debate now. All this means is 65 percent of Americans are against losing."
Considering that most of what Ritter said about the lack of weapons in Iraq has been proven accurate, he said that he hoped that it wouldn't be as easy for the news media to belittle his views on Iran.
"I have the benefit of history," he said. "It won't be as easy to dismiss it."
Ritter says plans for a U.S. attack on suspected nuclear production sites in Iran have been made, despite the recent determination by the International Atomic Energy Agency that there isn't enough evidence that Iran is making components for a nuclear weapon.
"We have excellent intelligence on Iran," said Ritter, "but the truth is not conducive to achieving the (Bush administration's) goal of regime change."
Ritter said that Iran is more concerned about a resurgent Iraq than about Israel. He also said that while he dislikes the regime in Iran, during his last visit there, in September, he was greeted warmly by ordinary Iranians.
"Iran is not black and white. It's not good against evil. It's gray. Very gray," said Ritter. "If you want to solve the problem (of Iran possibly building nuclear weapons), you need to talk about genuine diplomacy and we haven't even begun to do it."
Will there be an attack? Ritter said he hopes there won't, but if there is, he said that if Americans think what's happening in Iraq is bad, a war with Iran will be far worse.
"Congress has pretty much capitulated," said Ritter. "The public debate is over on Iran. Seventy percent of Americans says Iran is trying to get nuclear weapons, so the Bush administration doesn't have to sell this war. We're in a very dangerous climate right now."
While Galbraith disagreed with Ritter's assessment, saying he has hope "there will be a different Congress soon," Ritter is convinced that an attack on Iran is imminent.
"The new National Intelligence Estimate reaffirms the Bush administration's prerogative to intervene in any country it deems to be a threat, and the country that's named the most is Iran," said Ritter. "And if we use nuclear weapons in Iran, this game will not end until some Islamic group detonates a nuclear weapon in this country. Which city are we prepared to lose if that happens?"
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
