<<The oil was Iraq’s? How exactly did you figure that out – did all the oil have “Property of Iraq” written on it? Or perhaps “Property of Mr Hussein” would be more accurate. Oil fields pay no respect to national boundaries and in this case both nations were drawing from the same well.>>
They were drawing oil from oil fields within Iraqi territory. Pipes are generally meant to go down, to diagonally. Both sides were in the wrong here, Kuwait prevoked Saddam, Saddam's reaction was excessive.
As for the Ba'athist regime, it did many good things and did many bad things. People who argue against secterianism are arguing for the Ba'athist line, which is staunchly opposed to secterianism. In fact one of it's founders was an Orthodox Christian (the other was a Sunni). The Iraqi Ba'athist regime was largely positive until the start of teh Iran-Iraq war, which was when the shit hit the fan in a big way. Before that Iraq had some of the best living conditions for the overwhelming majority (as opposed to a tiny elite like in Saudi Arabia and Lebanon etc) of people. The Ba'athist programmes had a hell of a lot in similar with Chavez's programmes that are all the rage in the leftist community these days.
<<Kuwait is a puppet of the West along with almost every other nation, party and leader the region has seen in a hundred years. Its no better or worse than any other Arab regime you may mention. But whatever you or anyone else believes about the legitimacy of the country, it does not excuse Saddam’s invasion.>>
Egypt under Nasser, Ba'athist Syria, Ba'athist Iraq, South Yemen (Socialist), Iran from 1979 onwards, Libya under Qaddafi, not to mention the various revolts and movements that have dotted the region in the last century. Like most places that underwent decolonialisation there were many fercious anti-western movements and anti-western sentiment. There are only a handful of governments in the Middle East that are absolute puppets of the West, and many of teh countries who use to be pro-West were overthrown by Nationalist groups (Iran and Egypt, for example).
As far as Socialist-type states go, Iraq (until the late 70s), Syria (until fairly recently), Libya and South Yemen aren't/weren't that bad. Their main fault is their overwhelming nationalism which has a tendency to overshadow other things. Hugo Chavez may be more popular, but he has a hell of a lot in common with Saddam Hussein, Hafez al-Assad (Ba'athist president of Syria) and Qaddafi.
<<The “Sunni Triangle” and other Sunni controlled lands contain paltry resources when compared to the Kurdish and Shia sectors of the country. Most of the west of the country contains nothing but sand and dirt. How do you think that the Sunni politicians argued so strongly against any form of federalism?>>
Because taking power away from a small minority (17%? Somthing like that) after decades of pampering and nearly absolute power is bound to piss them off. In addition to this, after decades of shitting on the Shia and Kurds the idea of them getting a better deal (i.e. not being oppressed) is bound to scare them just a tad. The Sunni are bitter that they've lost their privilaged position in Iraq.
<<And on that last point, even those Sunnis that have engaged in the political process - those who are glad to see Saddam fall or are simply resigned to making the best of their situation – are vehemently against a future that will allow either other community to cash in on the oil wealth at their expense.>>
Because they're use to being pampered by the former Ba'athist regime and the colonial government before that.
<<Unfortunately the world rarely works out as it “should” do>>
No, however disregarding such things would be stupid.
<<Iran is playing power politics within the region. It seeks to counter US influence in the region. At the same time the Shia community (or those that lead it) are increasingly worried that Iraq might simply fall into civil war. They need allies. Neither will be thinking too long term at this point>>
Aligning yourself with Iran and becoming part of Iran are completely different things. You assume Iran wants to absorb a large hunk of Iraq and you assume that just because they're both Shia they will want to be absorbed into Iran. Both these assumptions are wrong.