It doesn't require "nuclear types of temperatures" to disassociate water into its constitutent elements. Burning metal will do it, which is why firefighters don't fight metal fires by spraying them with water.
You keep repeating this, but I'm not sure what you're attempting to say, and you're not any more correct because you use CAPITAL LETTERS. You can turn water (H2O) into hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) by bubbling ozone through it; let's see, accepts an oxygen atom, oxidation state increases, sounds like the exact same chemical reaction as what you'd colloquially call "burning" to me. Spray fluorine on water, and you'll get a vigorously dynamic reaction that produces oxygen and ozone and hydrofluoric acid, and while chemically that's not the same thing as "burning" the water, you'd be hard pressed to tell that by looking at the reaction occuring.
Not to mention that your claim that it's not the water that burns, it's the hydrogen and oxygen that are disassociated from the water, is a pretty meaningless semantic game. You might as well claim that *wood* DOES NOT burn, it's really just the gases coming out of the wood as it is heated past the point of ignition; technically, that's true, but that's a pretty small comfort to anyone whose wood-framed house is now a pile of ashes.
Uh...what? The perfect combustion of any hydrocarbon in an oxygen atmosphere will yield varying amounts of carbon dioxide and water. That's it. Impure combustion in a mixed nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere will yield all sorts of other stuff besides, but you're still going to get carbon dioxide and water.