No, because they didn't suit the interests of halting the worldwide advance of totalitarian Communism.
Great powers throw their weight around. What's creditable in the US case is that they threw their weight around in part to promote liberty and democracy across the world. Not every action can be taken as beneficent in isolation, but in bulk the US has been massively beneficent to the world.
Oh, come on. They, at times, overthrew democratically elected heads of state like Allende in favor of military dictatorships that went on to torture tens of thousands.
That's quite good.
I'm not going to defend any specific action especially when taken in isolation but in the large US global hegemony has been massively beneficient.
But other than those specific local actions, taken in isolation, it's all been massively good and massively beneficial.
Like throwing people in the sea, torturing civians by thousands, bombing presidential palace. The world was becoming a safer place, even on the wrong side of Iron Curtain, but this Chile thing was really a step backward. The guy was caught in UK and held behind bars for the rest of his life for a reason.
Nope, I don't understand. What's the use of liberty and democracy when you end up worse than commies?
Not everything the USA has done has been selfless and not everything has worked out for the best, maybe not even the majority! But I must challenge the original assertion: when you take into account both capacity and intent, America was by far the most beneficient power of the 20th Century.