The US was pulling out of the Philipines when WW2 started, as it had been decided almost a decade earlier to slowly transition to Philippine independence. Your

The US was pulling out of the Philipines when WW2 started, as it had been decided almost a decade earlier to slowly transition to Philippine independence. Your entire justification for Japan attacking the US was that America was no saint and had done terrible things previously. What I'm advocating is that a major source of unnecessary wars all over the world is continued eye-for-an-eye long-held grievances resurfacing, mostly because it is convenient for a state to resurface them in accomplishing whatever they wanted to do in the first place (expand their territory and resources to enrich themselves). Your equivalent today would be a country saying "look what they did to us 80 years ago, let's go attack them." Almost everyone sane has realized this doesn't lead anywhere productive, even when the grievances were true. Should China invade or attack Japan today for the Rape of Nanking? That's what you're justifying. Lastly, US being world police is a hotly contested issue for good reason. You can advocate they had "no business" in Vietnam and Korea, whereas others can point out that without the US, the fate of South Korea would be a North Korean state over all of Korea, at the expense of millions of Korean's rights and welfare. Following what the US prevented in Korea, and without any hindsight, they thought they could do the same in Vietnam, though in hindsight this was fraught for many other reasons.