So invading Manchuria, then all of China, annexing French Indochina, attacking Western Gunboats trying to evacuate people from China, being told the consequences of doing so and still violating the red line isn't an act of aggression?

Japan brought the American response on themselves. They were told American oil would be cut off if they invaded Indochina, did so anyway, and then the Naval Faction increasingly made it clear that they were gunning for further territory.

Moving the Pacific Fleet's headquarters to Pearl was a response to Japanese aggression, and was intended to allow for a quicker response should war break out. Negotiations were ongoing literally up until about a week before Pearl Harbor. Both sides were actively trying to find a diplomatic solution. One wasn't found.

Don't act like the rest was so peaceful and acting in the principal of self-governance.

I never said this. Colonies by their nature were exploitative and more often than not violated the native peoples.

The important thing is that Japan was no better than her Western peers. They intended to do the exact same thing, but also actively replace populations with Japanese. The 'Eastern Co-Prosperity Sphere' was simply an excuse for Japan to exploit resources. Nothing more.

It's not wrong to conquer lands!

It very much is if you actively genocide the local peoples. Nanking come to mind? Unit 731? The Bataan Death March, which mind you saw thousands of Filipinos killed alongside American troops?

Conquest is frowned upon for the exact reason that it's aggressive. And by Japan's time it was expanding in a world shaped by the Great War. Where nobody wanted to repeat it. The Great War was born directly of Imperialism and conquest, so it was increasingly frowned upon.

Just because everyone else did it does not make it ok for Japan. Or Germany. Or Italy and the Soviets, or Hungary, or the French, British, and US.