If America is a rogue state, what state is law abiding? For example, what country other than US has ever gone through the UN before using military power?

Now, you might say the UK in Gulf war I, though most regard that war as an America war, since without the US forces playing the main role, it couldn't have happened.

What nation in this world is following the resolution not to allow another genocide occur in this world?

I want to know where non rogue nation can be found. Is Canada tainted because of it's involvement in this war against terror?

Now, why did Saddam have some special right to rule the region called Iraq. I understand why we would recognize Saddam as the ruler, or any two-bit thug that gains control of that or any other country- basically because it's easier and what else are you going to do about it. But I don't know why people have to be so enthusiastic about it. Why does it become literally some eternal divine right- [and especially for people who don't even think there is anything which could possibly be divine].
Now, to repeat, I understand that we recognize governments, and collectively as nations we concede that some particular region of land has some kind of authority which has sovereignty, but from my point of view, a democratic nation- any democratic nation- has a higher authority than any dictatorship- even good and kind ones [if there ever were such a thing].

I think we should regard any nation which is comprise of people who can not choose there leadership to be second class in term of some inviolable sovereignty.
I want a dictatorship to feel a bit uncomfortable. I want them to be aware that people of free nations may not be very patience with their status how ever they may have acquired it.

Now, with Saddam he gained power by murder and then solidified his control by terrorizing Iraqi people in leadership positions [by selecting leaders, accusing them of being enemies of the state {enemies of Saddam} and having them executed. The message clearly was that any of them could be next if they didn't appear to show Saddam enough loyalty.
So, Saddam was following Stalin playbook- was doing his best to balance his internal terror campaigns with state propaganda that showed him to be the great leader.

As far as international law, as I see it, we don't care how a country is run internally. Though there may be quite few rules in the books about human rights and genocide and what not, but in practice there isn't much in regard to enforcement. Speeches are made condemning this kind of stuff, sometimes, and sometimes sanctions can be imposed, but generally it's all pretty mushy, and we quibble about definitions and what not. And if some ruler actually isn't a caveman, and manages to hire PR firms and throw some money around one really doesn't even have to worry too much about anyone really saying much about it.

But international law is all about a country invading another country. And Iraq with Saddam as it's ruler did this twice. Invaded Iran, and started a war which killed millions and also used chemical weapons. Ended that war. Then invaded Kuwait- which unlike Iran wasn't in any way conceivable that it was a military threat to Iraq.

Now Kuwait's only "crime" was it lacked the military ability to defend itself. And against Iraq's military, this was also a "crime" shared by Saudi Arabia.

So, I can't think any country which has so many strikes against it. The leader was never elected into power. He wasn't some customary leader as in a monarchy. All he going for him was the soviets were for some reason agreeable enough not to get rid of him [probably regretted that later]. And of course he enjoyed controlling people by murder and torture.

On those counts alone, Saddam should not have been a legitimate leader of a country. But one would think that after invading two countries, that there would an even stronger case against him.
A couple factors were involved that allowed Saddam to stay in power. First the cold war. Second the region that surrounds Iraq and the lack of any Arab country that is legitimate. Iraq may have been the worst country in the Arab club, but there is not a huge contrast.

Btw I don't think America would allow a Saddam to rule Mexico. And I think that is a good thing. And I think the Mexicans would happy about this kind of intolerance.

And as for Castro, at least he has the "decency" to only be involved in covert wars with various countries [of course he doesn't *actually* have the option of using conventional warfare].