And the New York Time's view on this issue is also understandable, but I sincerely believe that had it not been for US and its ventures abroad, we(over here in Europe) wouldn't need defending. Like when US wants to build anti-missile defense systems in Europe, and goes "look, we're just trying to save you from strikes from Middle East guys!" - great, but why would Middle East strike Poland for example? Oh that's right, because we're participating in every US war in that region. Great.

It's basically US stirring trouble all over the world and then saying "look how great we are for defending peace across the globe!".

Europe has such a peaceful history, we never had wars over here until the US came around right? C'mon...

For some value of stability, I guess.

Yours is equally naive, but understandable viewpoint :) If anything, America's role is destabilising (see attacking Iraq on false pretenses that destabilized Middle East and helped ISIS rise to power). The same goes for other wars waged by US: they are started to protect American economic interests, long term consequences be damned.

And by 'global stability' you of course mean, 'American financial interests'.

I by American you mean '0.1% of US Americans'.