So why can't the Iraqi gov't use their own oil money to support themselves? Haven't the geniuses at the UN lifted their sanctions?

>I was listening to the radio on the way into work this morning and a radio talk show host mentioned some recent interviews with Iraqi police and soldiers. They are aware of the public's sentiment to bring our soldiers home but are rather concerned it may happen too soon. According to those interviewed, they would be perfectly willing to assume security responsiblities if they had sufficient weapons and protective gear available. In reality, the insurgents are much better outfitted then the police and soldiers. They need better weapons (in some cases they need any weapons since they have none or the weapons are 20 years old) and protective gear as well. Training on the equipment would an issue as well. That would have to be done. It got me thinking, if a fund was started to raise money for weapons and protective gear for the Iraqis, who would donate? Would anyone? Could any parent take a child's tooth fairy money away to give to a charity for guns? How to explain that? Would
>they donate if it meant our soldiers would come home earlier? Who would donate at all given that it would be in essence donating money for guns? What if after buying all of those weapons and training on them the country later turned those weapons against us? (It has happened in the past). Interesting to think about...