I would argue against the annexation on central and south American and this would be purely a pedantic note.they want a hegemonic influence but not the responsibility of dominion over latin america. For instance They had backed an early coupe against mx that dethroned French backed mx emperor and conquered mx not too long after. They did not annex mexico. They backed a coupe to separate panama from its previous governing body, wrote extremely factorable terms for the canal, did not annex panama. Backed revolt against Spain in Puerto Rico and Cuba and didn't annex either. Backed militants in Nicaragua and didn't annex. Basically they want the resources but not want to build and maintain the roads, schools, police. Which is in my opinion is different than a complete land grab.

As a Californian I will embrace any non-american who calls me Yankee assuming it's followed by some Sherman posting.

It's always been funny to me when latin Americans get pissy at the term American being used to describe the country who's president is Biden ( said with love as mx) . They always try to correct Americans to "estados unidenses" United Statean. Which in my opinion doesn't work for 3 reasons. First name recognition most of the world associate Americans with 'merica. 2nd it's a difficult set of words for Anglo speakers especially vs Americano. Thirdly there are actually 2 countries thats proper name include "United States" those are united states of American and United States of Mexico, who colloquially are known as America and Mexico respectively.