{{{Boogie on the head of a pin}}}

Once again, due to the wonderful thing that is called the world, reality and politics, another motion has yet again been given life.

Today, THW end sanctions in Iraq. And my baseline is, why not?

After all, the worry that the (ex)regime in Iraq would use 'dual use' equipment (equipment with both civilian and military potential e.g. GPS units) to their own nefarious ends is no longer a problem. After all, all the sanctions are really doing now is hurting the citizens of Iraq. And all that's stopping it is legalities and politics.

Lest I get misunderstood, I don't blame the sanctions much for hurting the people of Iraq, the majority of the blame must fall on the dictator who refused to hear their pleas of sorrow and agony, he who could and did manipulate the sanctions, he who chose to enrich himself from the Oil-for-food program while his people starved in poverty. The rest has to fall on the neighbours and the world who could have made this the most effective policing of sanction in the world (a landlocked nation surrounded by other countries) but who turned a blind eye to smuggling in return for cheap oil from the dictator. Similarly, it forced other nations into making horrible choices between hurting the innocent citizens or allowing Saddam access to equipment that would benefit him, his army and his weapons program.

Admittedly, there are already sanctions setting out what is needed to be done before sanctions are lifted, the most important of which is the determination that Iraq possesses no more WMD. But why not allow the concurrent occurance of inspections and lifting of sanctions. Surely in this instance expidency could be implemented. Surely, the saving of lives is more important than the possible perception that the UN had support the original US led attack?