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!)

On 20 January 2004, George Bush Jr. President of United States gave his last (?) State of Union Address. In this article, I will point out 25 fallacies of speech on war on terror.

Fallacy 1. "By bringing hope to oppressed and delivering justice to violent, [the American servicemen and women] are making America more secure." Apologists of war on terror are quick to point out that there have not been any major attacks on U.S. since September 11, 2001. But what of numerous terror alerts? And how did deadly toxin ricin recently find its way into US Senate for second time! Or did ‘Senator' Ricin, ‘terrorist,' win a re-election into upper house? Does that not show that terrorists still present a clear and present danger? Clearly an early warning signal!

Fallacy 2. "Each day, law enforcement personnel and intelligence officers are tracking terrorist threats; analysts are examining airline passenger lists; men and women of our new Homeland Security Department are patrolling our coasts and borders. And their vigilance is protecting America."

Americans and indeed world should not live under false hope of being protected by intelligence officers. Because terrorists themselves are becoming more creative. Who has ever heard of shoe bombers before?

The U.S. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi exposed this illusion in her speech: "One hundred percent of containers coming into our ports or airports must be inspected. Today, only 3 percent are inspected. One hundred percent of chemical and nuclear plants in United States must have high levels of security. Today, Bush Administration has tolerated a much lower standard. One hundred percent of enriched uranium and other material for weapons of mass destruction must be secured. Today, Administration has refused to commit resources necessary to prevent it from falling into hands of terrorists." In this case, is America protected? If answer is no, what about other countries with less security measures and porous borders?

Fallacy 3. "We have not come all this way, through tragedy, and trials, and war, only to falter and leave our work unfinished." The war on terror is an unfinished business.

In fact, battle has only begun. Commenting on this, New York Times Magazine said that war on terror "is beginning of an epic battle." And to support this, La Repubblica newspaper said: "Today we get feeling that we are living in middle of a tornado, an unparalleled catastrophe." Those are not right words to describe end of a story.

Fallacy 4. "And by our will and courage, this danger must be defeated." That is a very upbeat statement. On 24 July 2003, US Vice-President Dick Cheney also sounded oracular when he said: "One by one, in every corner of world, we will hunt terrorists down and destroy them."

Al-Qaeda has now mutated into multifaceted anonymous groups. And this new phase is more dangerous than former centralized visible organization. Take a warning: Do not go to some radical Muslim country to search for terrorists. Because that your prodigal son, or your estranged husband, or in fact, that distant relative of yours may be a terrorist. A roll call in prison at Guantanamo Bay reveals that even some Americans and Britons—citizens of two nations in forefront of war on terror—have been "Talibanized."

Besides, these groups are becoming more desperate. They have succeeded in their use of surface-to-air missiles (SAMS)—tumbling down military aircrafts at will in Iraq. And make no mistake about it: these cave dwellers may crack a dirty nuke somewhere someday, or unleash a deadly plague. In that case, how would world respond? Detonate a nuclear bomb? So you can see that "we are perilously near a new international anarchy" according to Washington Post. The war on terror, therefore, is not winnable.

Fallacy 5. "And one of these essential tools is Patriot Act, which allows Federal law enforcement to better share information, to track terrorists, to disrupt their cells, and to seize their assets." Terrorism can not be wiped out by legislation. After all, these are man-made laws and man himself is imperfect. There must be loopholes, and terrorists exploit weakness of system. Now, what if they stop living in cells? Or what if they stop keeping their money in banks? Then they would be as elusive as shadows.