thanks for the history lesson and defined positions, something I wish we got from all ends of discussions. It's just yet another example of things are spun to defend failed bush policies.You need to get yourself a good dictionary and look up the word "occupation", man.
The Japanese constitution was signed on November 3rd, 1946. Obviously, this was after they had been defeated and surrendered. The military was HERE in Japan but it wasn't an OCCUPYING force because at that point we were working WITH and not AGAINST the civilian government and the population of the country, in order to help them rebuild. And since we'd seen to it that the buildup of a domestic military would be unconstitutional in Japan, the bases we established here were not only to expand our security in Asia but to protect Japan as well. (I just went to my friend's place at a residential base last week. To this day Japan foots the bill for maintaining the cost of living of U.S. forces and their families here. We don't pay them rent for using their land; they pay us to keep them safe). And in fact, we never occupied any of the four main islands of Japan (Honshu, Kyushu, Shikoku and Hokkaido). The only territories which may have been considered "occupied" by the U.S. during the war were some of the Okinawan and other South Pacific islands that Japan had laid claim to as their empire expanded.
We never were really an occupying force in South Korea either, as we were there at the invitation of the South Korean regime which was seeking to defend itself against North Korean attacks after Seoul fell. And like in Japan, once the conflict had ended, the role of the U.S. in South Korea was to help rebuild, and increase security for both S. Korea and the U.S. by establishing bases there.
Germany was more complicated, of course, due to the slicing and dicing of the country after the war, but again, after it was all said and done (and most specifically after the U.S. had gone far in gaining the trust of the West Germans with the Berlin Airlift), we were there on friendly, not hostile terms, and thus not an occupying force.
Now, in Iraq, not even the government we more or less installed there wants us around anymore, let alone the vast majority of the citizens. Sure, a lot of people fear what will happen if we pull out in too hasty a manner, but they also believe that our presence in the greatest source of instability there, and it's pretty damn close to nobody who wants us to be there long term. So we are there against the will of the people and if we stay there much longer we will be there against the will of the government as well. We are truly an occupying force.
So please, don't try to portray me as not knowing what I'm talking about with your little "sad" comment, when it's you who didn't understand what I meant in the first place:
We never occupied Japan.
We never occupied South Korea.
And from Germany's surrender in WWII onward, we never occupied Germany, either.
But we are, most definitely, an unwelcome occupying force in Iraq.