Don Graves used the term "continental power." You introduced the term "dominant land power". I just rolled with it. Now you choose to define that term as based on a" large standing army meant to defeat or intimidate its enemies and potential enemies". I will reply that "large" is a relative concept. America's vision of manifest destiny may not have included a large army by European standards, but it was big and intimidating enough by the standards of the Western Hemisphere. It kept the British North Americans on edge during the late 18th and much of the19th century, supported the acquisition of a huge portion of Mexico and then later intimidated the French into abandoning support of Maximilian, it was adequate to the task of dissuading significant European intervention in northern half of the hemisphere. As for the native Americans, again, the US Army proved dominant enough to support the acquisition of hefty bits of real estate.
So, no, I'm not changing any definitions - though I was left to presume how they terms posted were defined. I am only responding to your apparent assertion that the US was not a continental/dominant land power in her neighborhood.
Cheers - Howie