In the 1800s the US was indeed expansionist. But their view was that of Manifest Destiny - it was the USA's manifest destiny to expand and control the Western hemisphere. To that end the USA launched wars (eg against Mexico), fought against colonial powers, and so on.
However it was also a defined sphere of influence. The USA was late to both WW 1 and 2 because what happened in Europe was widely felt to not be the USA's affair. Privately we armed one side, but we didn't fight. It was not until the Kaiser attempted to form an alliance with Mexico that the USA entered into WW 1. And not until Japan attacked did the USA enter WW 2. After WW 2, the USA proactively looked for opportunities to engage world wide.
On the colonies, all of the European powers had put down rebellions repeatedly. After WW 2 they moved towards transferring power to local authorities. And their desire to do this was codified in the UN charter. See https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xi/index.h... for verification.
Wow. Empty virtue signaling words. With such empty words, one wonders why so many colonized peoples had to die after ww2 to free themselves from their brutal colonizers?
Seems like there are a lot of people defending the brutal colonizers. I wonder why?
However it was also a defined sphere of influence. The USA was late to both WW 1 and 2 because what happened in Europe was widely felt to not be the USA's affair. Privately we armed one side, but we didn't fight. It was not until the Kaiser attempted to form an alliance with Mexico that the USA entered into WW 1. And not until Japan attacked did the USA enter WW 2. After WW 2, the USA proactively looked for opportunities to engage world wide.
On the colonies, all of the European powers had put down rebellions repeatedly. After WW 2 they moved towards transferring power to local authorities. And their desire to do this was codified in the UN charter. See https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xi/index.h... for verification.