> unless you count them allowing US bases as "militarily involved", but that doesn't cause bad blood so doubt it

Yes by militarily involved I do mean having military bases as well. "Doesn't cause bad blood" -> you are talking from perspective of a Westerner/American (I am making an assumption here). It benefits US to have a military base but need not necessarily benefit the host country. Almost always there will be a compromise, "a choosing of lesser of two evils" so to speak, when a Nation has to give up sovereign space for a military of another Nation to occupy its lands. It is out of desperation. In some cases it is out of pressure too.

Which is why I consider it "military involvement". There is a stark contrast between having an Embassy in a Country vs a Military Base in a Country. The host country can always call for shutdown of a foreign Embassy and expel Diplomats. These rules are governed by World organizations like the United Nations. However, a Host country cannot expel a military base from its land unless it is written down in the agreement between the two Nations. Even then, the actual ability to shut down an already established military base is significantly costlier on the host nation if it has lesser military strength (which it most certainly has, else why would it want to host another Nation's military in the first place?).

I also include coup-de-tats as there is covert operations which involves using militia or even military of countries where USG wants Government to be toppled. The most recent example is that of Pakistan where there is widespread allegation within the country that USG along with Pakistani military toppled the previous regime. Now whether those allegations are true or not is secondary. The sentiment within the country prevails. So when I said "bad blood" I mean it as a "perception of the people on ground" sort of thing.

> Cyprus, Switzerland, Malta, Scandinavia, Finland, Luxembourg, Spain and Portugal (unless you count them allowing US bases as "militarily involved", but that doesn't cause bad blood so doubt it), Mongolia, Nepal, all of the former Soviet Union (except stuff like paying to get nuclear waste and weapons properly disposed of, which is even less of "militarily involved" and even less cause for bad blood), big chunks of Africa - Morocco, Algeria and Tunis (unless you count Operation Torch to free the Vichy France protectorates in favour of Free), South Africa, Rwanda, South Sudan, etc. Just off the top of my head, and I'm sure I'm missing a bunch even if I might be mistaken on one or two.

I talked about military involvement. It need not necessarily mean the War was not justified. It could very well be justified and it could be fought on the sides of Allies too. However, when a foreign Nation involves in any War to assist another Nation (especially in civil wars), there will always be bad blood created within the Nation as there is one section of the populace who would be targeted by strikes. You can call them "rebels" but for those "rebels" it is an invasion of their homeland. I am sure if I do further research I'll be able to find US military involvement in every one of these countries that you listed in some form or the other. Of the top of my head, US was involved in the Nepalese Civil War where it supported the Gorkha Empire against the Communist Party of Nepal.

> All that to say, there's no need to exaggerate American warmongering, imperialism and neo-colonialism. It has done insurmountable damage to many counties and resulted in millions if not tens of millions of dead, all for profits of American corporations. Exaggerating it makes it more easily refutable and minimises the suffering caused.

Not exaggerating. "Militarily involved" does not necessarily mean going into a country guns blazing. One can always covertly bring about regime change or tilt an ongoing civil war within another country in one's favour. Almost always creates bad blood among a section of the populace.