I would like to see some actual facts and citations to support the bald assertion "sounds very similar to what America was doing in Latin America and certain parts of the Pacific".

The US had seized the Philippines after war with Spain, getting a treaty with Spain to hand them over. The US had then acted brutally in areas to crush Filipino independence. That has been some 35ish years past. The US passed the Tydings-McDuffie Act in 1934, starting a 10-year clock to grant independence. The US had some Pacific insular possessions, but I don't believe there was significant dislike from the local people.

In Latin America, the US had been doing various interventions for some decades. They had tended to be in-and-out due to turmoil, defaults on debts, toddering governments, to "protect American ... interests", and such. Nicaragua, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic, though, had been much longer and intrusive affairs. However, FDR had instituted the Good Neighbor Policy in 1933; occupations ended, much greater respect was being given, and US-Latin American relations improved radically.

The US was not at that time committing a massive invasion to seize control of the most productive lands of a continent, killing millions of inhabitants (often with atrocities) and ruthlessly exploiting the living. (The US had, of course, entirely completed a project on those lines in the previous century.) They were not planning further massive invasions to seize other areas in similar ways.

Had you compared the Japanese with what the US had done, you might have had a stronger point (though the matter of degree and intent would still have to be considered), and I expect the Japanese had much to say about US hypocrisy. But the US had reformed quite a bit by the time of Japan's aggressions.