So, all the solutions suck somewhat. Other than "other people give us very large amounts of free money we don't have to pay back", I suppose. But you can't reasonably expect other people to like that solution. Especially because it doesn't really fix the poor discipline behind the problem, and it'll no doubt just recur.
This part of your post in particular interests me. I apologise for the link to Wikipedia, but it's got the nicest table I could find at short notice: Take a look at the second table in this section
of the page I linked, and then tell me whether you think North Dakota's economy is a particularly contentious issue in the US. (Actually, I found another analysis while writing this, which is here
, so South Carolina could also be used as an example). This comparison may not seem apropos, but I'd put it to you that it's actually very relevant, in that Europe (and especially the economically stronger nations in Europe) wants all the benefits of a fiscal union with none of the drawbacks. The link here, is that it's accepted and uncontroversial and not a crisis in the US that richer states are putting more into the federal piggybank than they ever get out of it, and the reverse is true of poorer states. Effectively, this amounts to a neverending transfer of money from rich states to poor states, and that's kinda just how it is, and it seems like it's kinda how it has to be if you want one currency for a whole continent with disparate sub-regions of economic power. Having the Euro and playing at being one big, happy Europe is all well and good, as long as everyone's willing to actually do their bit.
As for the whole discussion about blame: If you're going to have an entire region use the same currency, you need to homogenise the decision-making process for the direction of the economy. From my perspective, it looks very much like only the stronger and richer economies are being taken into account when decisions about the Euro are being made. Maybe putting conditions x, y, and z on the continued use of the Euro seem reasonable if you're German - if you're Greek, the same conditions are probably going to seem downright oppressive. That said, Greece is a little bit implicit in their own downfall in this case. They defrauded quite a lot of people, and did so quite flagrantly, to get where they are now - so it's at least a little bit the fault of both Greece and the rest of Europe/the Troika. But even so, it would be folly to ignore the effect of the GFC. maybeagnostic seems to have touched on this, but I don't think they've quite done it justice - they've set up a nice dichotomy between being able and being unable to make the repayments on your debt. But it's not quite as simple as the fact that Greece wouldn't have been able to make even the repayments even without the recession - they would've been much closer in that situation, and while it would've been bad, it would still have been fixable. As it stands, I don't know whether it is fixable.
Ultimately, yes Greece needs to make some pretty big reforms, but "reform" isn't synonymous with "austerity measure" and it wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility for the Troika to continue to prop Greece up while the reforms are being implemented. I don't think negotiating, as Syriza ostensibly has been trying to do, can be done any longer - maybe in 2008 when people still held Greek debt and Greece leaving the Euro would have had some effect on anything outside of Greece, but not anymore. The only thing Europe's got to lose if Greece leaves is face, and they'll probably lose some of that no matter how this turns out. So in my view, either Europe has to become more like America, and get used to the idea that having a unified currency entails propping up the weaker members of that economic union; or else Greece has to bring back the Drachma (whether it replaces or runs alongside the Euro), and then radically devalue it to try and kick the economy back into gear. No matter which way it goes, it's got to go soon. The situation as it stands can't go on much longer.