We didn't poison anything. Europe just left, as asked, or sometimes revolted for. So, there you have the British, having established a working colonial system, exploiting the colony but at the same time bringing some semblance of civilisation to those countries. The local population rebelled against them and made them leave, they leave and now you say the British "poisoned" them so they were set up to fail?
Nah man, the world doesn't work like that. Consequences mean that for your actions there are consequences. If you think you can do a better job than Britain to run a country and the British leave, it's up to you to do a better job, not Britain.
And yes, we are thumbing our noses at the US, because they also seem to think they can do a better job than Europe did, and they're failing spectacularily at it. For all the oppression Britain gave to the world, it's not them that's hated globally by third world countries. It's not Russia. It's the country that last bombed them that they hate. And current US politics seem to employ bombing as a friendly greeting. Maybe the US should change that... but who are we to listen to. We're not the mighty US, the only super power, the salvation of humanity and all that other jazz...
See, for all their faults, when the British were pompous about having an Empire where the sun never sets, they actually could pull that one off and be arrogant about it. The US? Not so much...
- - - Updated - - -
Yeah... and while we were doing all that, we still had a better life than people in Africa today. And that's me comparing a country that failed hard living a better life than a country that's independent and got all it wanted. Perspective, my friend, it will help you in decyphering this one.