Does the world really need U.S. interference today?

Not today - or yesterday.

You are incorrect about one thing. The USA finances the 'rebels' (Islamic fanatics) in Syria; it is Assad and Russia who are fighting them.

The main member and largest military power within NATO is the United States. Of course the US does not need to go along with NATO members if they decided they need to act in regards to something, only if - under certain circumstances - a NATO member is attacked.

The EU does not have an army. The EU did not act during the problems in the Balkans in the 90s, they did not deploy peacekeepers to Northern Ireland, etc

The UN's job is it promote peace, not bomb countries into submission. Look at the ineffective nature of the UN mission to Rwanda, how much fighting went on in conferences to determine if a reaction should be made to what was going on in Dafur or if it was a genocide or not.

An organization or nation is not in place to take on the role that the US currently occupies, a role that was somewhat occupied before hand by the British when they were the world's superpower (financing the growth of the new nations, bankrolling much of the world, military intervention to halt the slave trade, bankrolling the Allied war effort against Napoleon, attempting to force the world into adopting free trade policies etc). I think, like it or not, we need (since we have no alternative at present) great powers and super powers to intervene in countries were the UN wont or other will not to end wars quicker and to stabilize regions. Regrettably, such lofty and noble intentions have been missing for the last 13 years.

Well, if you look in our history books, you will hear about all the good we have done to help the world. Though this is from our perspective. The world though has other opinions. We have a terrible habit of sticking our noses where they don't belong.

And against common thought, we have done little to "help" the middle east. We have provoked the already steady flow of violence of civil war and suppression.

Than you have peace. First, NATO, was disbanded only a few years after starting. Second, UN is called the paper tiger for a reason. They try to help, but in the end, international laws do not allow them to interfere in many things. Mostly they provide refugee camps and food/water.

Than you have our economy. Wars and interference with the world does contribute substantial debt, but since our money if borrowed from the central bank, we are going in debt no matter what we spend.

So you could say there is no good answer.

I'd be happy if the U.S. gave the sheriff's badge to another country for the next 69 years. We've been doing it way too long. Ask the people in Bosnia if we should have gone there or let the country slaughter each other?

Gr8Answ!