Re: There are two ways of taking over a country
The bill the UK paid was a tiny fraction of overall US Lend-Lease, mainly related to supplies which arrived after the end of the war and ended up being handed over on very favourable terms.
There were a few other quid pro quos, notably so called Reverse Lend-Lease from across the British Empire, and the Tizard Mission but overall the US deployed an awful lot of resources to shore up it's European allies against Facism and subsequently against Communism in the post-war period. Of course it reaped diplomatic and strategic rewards, but that's a longer subtler game than tired tropes about control over raw materials. The US has more than enough food and oil it doesn't need to go starting or supporting wars just to get more.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
