Fallacy 11. "We are working with Iraqis and United Nations to prepare for a transition to full Iraqi sovereignty by end of June.... The killers will fail, and people of Iraq will live in freedom." There is no full sovereign country on this earth. Because small powers—the minnows are perpetually living under shadows of big powers—the tritons. In book, CHASING SHADOWS!: A Dream; I called them Say powers and Yes powers. And in these days of unipolarism and regime change, full sovereignty can go to ‘hell.'
Besides, there is no guarantee of self-government in Iraq by June 2004. The UN was recently dragged into Iraqi ‘business.' And talking of freedom, did Iraqis say that they want it? There is even talk of a civil war in that country sooner or later.
Fallacy 12. "Because of American leadership and resolve, world is changing for better." Lie. And damned lie. Or was it because Libya's leader Colonel Qadhafi said other day that he was dismantling all his dangerous weapons? Who doesn't know why?
This world has never been a better place to live. What with wars and more wars? Maybe we should be ‘spirited' to Mars and have ‘opportunity' to live there in peace. According to Ivan L. Head, president of international research centre, "Since 1945, there have been less than seven weeks when world has been free of military activity." And as you read this, 12 wars are going on around globe today. If earth were a patient, her condition would be said to be hypercritical, not ‘better.'
Fallacy 13. "And one reason is clear: For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible—and no one can now doubt word of America.... America and international community are demanding that Iran meet its commitment and not develop nuclear weapons. America is committed to keeping world's most dangerous weapons out of hands of world's most dangerous regimes." Fine words. Now hear Nancy Pelosi again: "As a nation, we must show our greatness, not just our strength. America must be a light to world, not just a missile." The nuclear weapons possessed by United States alone can kill every man, woman and child living on earth today 12 times over! And all nuclear arsenals possessed by superpowers have destructive power of 6,000 Second World Wars. I mean 6,000 times 55 millions lives that perished in madness. What's your answer?
Now, look at double standard. Why must U.S. and other superpowers possess weapons of mass destruction while other nations are not even allowed to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes? Why? OK, all animals are equal but some are more equal than others. (Apologies to George Orwell.) And why should other countries, which are not in superpower category like Israel, India and Pakistan be allowed to possess these banned weapons? All right, they are not rogue states or members of Axis of Evil.
If ‘words must be credible' why did US abandon Kyoto protocol on global warning—an agreement that she pledged to keep. America should lead by example. If you have weapons of mass destruction, what stops me from having them? After all, what is source for goose is source for gander.
Fallacy 14. "I gave to you and to all Americans my complete commitment to securing our country and defeating our enemies." The questions that we should be asking are, Why does world hate America? I have published articles on this subject on Internet. I think that solution should start from asking right questions. Who was it that said to know disease is half cure? He was probably right.
In regard to assurance of securing and defeating enemies, King David of Israel wrote over 1,500 years ago: "Do not put your trust in nobles, nor in son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs. His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground, in that day his thoughts do perish." That is bottom line.
Fallacy 15. "And my Administration, and this Congress will give you resources you need to fight and win war on terror." The President was referring to American military men and women in Iraq. But exactly how much has been spent on this Iraqi war? Hear Nancy Pelosi: "A colossal $120 billion and rising" borne by American taxpayers. Just think of how far that sum of money can go to solving economic problems. Kofi Annan, UN scribe recently said that resources expended on war is exacting a toll on world development. And recently at World Economic Summit at Davos Switzerland, question on every body's lips was, Would US economy recover quick enough to avert a world economic melt down? No thanks to billions of money spent on senseless wars. Yet about $1.5 billion will be spent this minute on military expenditure! How much would have been burnt at end of your reading this article? By today's end, 40,000 children would die of hunger alone!
Fallacy 16. "I know that some people question if America is really in a war at all." They are right. In a war, there must be clear enemies. The enemies must be in a defined territory. And there must be a bone of contention—a clear cause of war.
But in so-called war on terror, we don't know who enemies are. Neither do we know where they live. Besides, those fighting against terrorists do not know cause of provocation. At Davos, Vice-President Dick Cheney was talking about democratization of Middle East as an antidote to terrorism. But does that solve problem? Look at great democracies like Indonesia, Russia and Philippines. What do we see there? Terrorism. Or it is separatism?
Fallacy 17. "Some in this chamber and in our country, did not support liberation of Iraq ....But let us be candid about consequences of leaving Saddam Hussein in power....We are seeking all facts. The Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from United Nations." That is not true. The U.S. weapons inspector, David Kay—who has since resigned—has gone to town to announce that Iraq did not have such weapons. He was sure that someone had cooked facts, and he called for an investigation and an apology. Even Bush himself has turned an about face saying: "I want to know facts." And he has set up an independent bi-partisan commission of inquiry—the 9/11 Commission—to find out what went wrong. Even at other end in Britain a similar inquiry is on. (May we live in interesting times!)
So he did not know facts? So intelligence can fail? There was negative or missed intelligence in Japanese Imperial Navy attack on American army at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 and on terrorist attack in World Trade Center on 9/11. If most powerful man in world is ignorant of another attack of immense proportions because of intelligence failure, can we be said to be safe? Your answer is as good as mine.