We are starting to hear this word more often. It is a powerful word which makes everybody (especially the U.S) cringe. The U.S. will not allow the Iraqi opposition to declare a provisional government if Saddam is out.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=World&cat=Iraq

The increasingly more difficult challenge for the U.S. will be to disguise the installation a puppet and divert the attention of the world off words like “Occupation”

Everyone knows that occupation is part of what's to come. Now, if we can only convert them into Christians. Give it time and we will. :D

As Part of the conversion to modern western religion:

What about starting a oil for crack program after the war?

We are going to be a little more careful this time around. We arent going to let another dictator take over iraq because it seemed like a good idea at the time. We are going to build a stable democratic republic and that takes time. We also want to make sure no subgroup gets subjugated.

muslims are christian

First comes the Invasion, next the Occupation and after that the…… Cleaning and payments!

Originally posted by SwedishFish
muslims are christian
SwedishFish, can you elaborate? To the best of my knowledge, the muslims acknowledge Jesus as one of the prophets before Muhammad and the God in the Islamic faith is the same God in Christianity and Judaisme. Is this what you meant?

While oil for crack would be more along the lines of the US's history, why not the obvious? Oil for cannabis? After all, Lebanese farmers growing hashish plants again ... for the last few years, I guess, since the subsidy system collapsed or failed or whatever the hell happened there. And Kush weed (e.g. "Purple Kush") can grow in the north of Iran, and obviously in the Hindu Kush. And what better way to get to know the quality of American workmanship than huffing down some G-13 or Mattanooska Thunderf:eek:ck?

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

<i>"muslims are christian"</i>

Hmm, It was derived from Judaism and Christianity. The Arab folk were in need of a cohesive force, so Muhhamad created one.

will be more difficult than the war itself. We can't send out a cruise missile to stop an Islamic radical who has explosives tied around his waist.

Converting their government to a democracy will be a miracle.

Converting them to Christianity will be an impossibility.

The occupation of Japan was facilitated by two things.

1. Respect for authority is a key facet of the Japanese national character.

2. When Japan surrendered, their Emperor asked the entire population to put the hostilities behind them and allow the American occupying forces to help the people help themselves, so their country could rise out of its disgrace and become healthy, strong, and honorable again.

The Japanese people looked around them and saw 50,000 helpers.

The Iraqis, in contrast, have no long tradition of respect for human authority. When times get tough, people in the Mideast have often turned to their local religious leaders, or even directly to the spirit of God inside them, for inspiration. In any case, there is no well-respected Iraqi political leader who is going to tell his people to cooperate with the occupying troops.

It is quite possible that the Iraqi people will look around them and see 50,000 potential targets for terrorist attacks.

For a discussion of the issues involved in the occupation of Japan written at the time:

http://www.iwanami.co.jp/sekai/2000/03/146.html

History, Japan Occupation and Analogy (http://communication.ucsd.edu/911/japan.html)

Thoughts on the Military History of the Occupation of Japan (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v09/v09p177_Miki.html)

THE OCCUPATION OF JAPAN (http://www.lexisnexis.com/academic/2upa/Ijs/OccupationJapan2.htm)

What Future for Japan? U.S. Planning for the Postwar Era, 1942-1945 (http://www.let.uu.nl/nasa/janswhat.htm)

i heard there were hundreds of operatives fluent in japanese helping out. planning had started by the time pearl harbor was bombed. academics, politicians.... numbering in the thousands were involved in the occupation
macarthur seemed to be well respected by the average japanese too.

we were committed to make things work then. i do not see it now. there is no serious vision, no planning. just useless empty slogans

For over twenty years, beginning with General Zia ul Haq, Islamic fundamentalist forces had been trying to gain entry into the Pakistani establishment but with scant success. But within a year of the U.S. presence in Pakistan — its `frontline ally' in its war on terrorism — the Islamic fundamentalists including elements from the Taliban and Al Qaeda fighting under the banner of MMA made impressive gains in the elections: they are in a position to form provincial governments in the Northwest Frontier Province and Baluchistan and hold enough seats in the National Assembly to decide the shape of the next government. Najam Sethi, a leading Pakistani journalist and commentator, attributes this extraordinary development to General Musharraf's alliance with America in its war in Afghanistan, now spilling over into Pakistan.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/op/2002/10/22/stories/2002102200020200.htm

Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed-- Go, bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need; To wait, in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild-- Your new-caught sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child.

Take up the White Man's burden--
In patience to abide, To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride; By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain, To seek another's profit
And work another's gain.

Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace-- Fill full the mouth of Famine,
And bid the sickness cease; And when your goal is nearest
(The end for others sought) Watch sloth and heathen folly
Bring all your hope to nought. (kipling)

-----------------------------------------------------------

Inevitably, the U.S. did take control over the islands--to preserve the peace (it was not believed that the proposed Philippine government would be strong enough to maintain order) and to spread American ideals and philosophies. In response, the insurgents who previously fought alongside the Americans against the Spanish now fought against their allies.

I think occupation is not an option US is considering. They're going to try to get UN to go in. Poor France is going to have to clean up the mess.

The neocons were expecting the Liberation of Paris. Their introduction to reality is not pretty. They have no contingency for what will unfold.

Once they get a taste of post Saddam and American capitalism, they will be peace lovin' fools.

They will never forget the taste of America they are getting right now.

originally posted by Bowser
Once they get a taste of post Saddam and American capitalism, they will be peace lovin' fools.The evolution of the post-dictator, post-communist former Soviet republics and satellites does not support this hypothesis. Many of them have fallen right back under the spell or simple strong-arm power of dictators, and many of their people long for the safety net of socialism. I have a friend in the Czech Republic who is a surgeon. After the Velvet Revolution the doctors in his clinic were given the opportunity to buy the building from the government (at what was, truthfully, not even a rip-off price) and operate it as a private enterprise. His income fell from the equivalent of US $200 per month, which one could live on and afford an occasional luxury in communist Czechoslovakia, to the equivalent of US $50. His family has had to disband and move in with relatives to survive, and he can’t even afford the stamps and stationery to keep up our corresondence. And the Czech Republic is one of the more prosperous survivors of Perestroika.Hypewaders
They will never forget the taste of America they are getting right now.You got that right. The Japanese were exhorted by their beloved Emperor (who, arguably, was at heart a man of peace who could not prevail over his hawkish military machine) to forgive the Americans, shoulder their own responsibility for WWII, and work together for a bright future. Does anyone see that happening in Iraq?

<i>"They will never forget the taste of America they are getting right now."</i>

And that will prove to be a good thing...

Fraggle, a very good point, however, domestication of a country takes time.

The first thing we would have to do is to get the Iraqi people to quit firing those frikking AK47's into the air at every wedding and birthday party. Failure to do so would tend to make the occupiers a bit nervous.

And the Iraqi men, in a true democracy, would have to omit uttering one of their favorite prayers. "I praise alla that I was not born a woman." Hillary would not like that prayer, and would probably throw a hissy fit in the Senate.

Then there is the little matter of them not tolerating any other religion. hmm Maybe DR. Phil, or DR Laura should handle that one.

The Iraqi women who have a tendancy to wag their tongues while screaming should be limited to doing it during their PMS and at noon only, as it would wake the sleeping American soldiers who just got off the night shift.

Those few things and the fact that all of Isalm would prefer to see us dead can all be overcome if we just give it a little time.

.............DR Phil..........!!..Why do I see a incredibley large knife sticking out of your back?

First off not everybody in Iraq is of the same religon!

Acutally before Isreal people in the middle east wanted America to do any mandate over the rest of world. We didnt try and colonize them.

Iraq should be split i think in between the Sunni, shi'is and kurdish people.

In the Shi'is and Kurdish terrories democracy should be relativly easy. These were the easiest to gain and were the most punnished by Saddam.

Sunni muslims may resist our pressence alot more unfortunantly. They were the upper class citizens in Iraq and may fear revenge from Kurds and Shi'is muslims.

There are no leaders in Iraq because they have either been killed have learned to be quiet. Some may rise later on though hopefully.

USA needs to occupy Iraq otherwise thier will be a power vaccum and Iran or Turkey will take over the kurds and Shi'is that want thier independence.

Originally posted by Bowser
however, domestication of a country takes time.

havent been to the big bad city yet huh?

:D

"Then there is the little matter of them not tolerating any other religion"
The Busheviks would have been hard-pressed to select a less religiously repressive country in the Mideast to occupy.

"...domestication of a country takes time."
This is another example of how America is involved where it has little understanding.

The occupation of Iraq will be more ugly in many ways than the current fighting, as far as the American public's comfort level and sense of orientation (pardon the pun) are concerned. US occupation forces and their token accomplices will be in closer than ever interface with thousands of people willing to kill them to expell forces that are and will be widely perceived as colonialist oppressors.

As the occupation continues, instability will increase including continuous insurrection, and animosity will increase from not only most every country bordering Iraq, but from the entire world. As the Arab and Muslim worlds become more enraged with each gory news report, a widening of the conflict is inevitable.

Those who are beginning to have a shadow of doubt about Washington's platitudes should take a look back: Those opposed to occupation of Iraq have long been warning of popular rejection of US hegemony, and have long been warning of increased instability including global terrorism. Those supporting agenda expressed by PNAC have been telling those they wish to control that this will be a process of tipping evil regimes with surgical force, and enjoying the gratitude of liberated Arabs seeking to cooperate with American plans.

Decide who has greater situational awareness, and then take a look forward: Those opposed to the occupation of Iraq expect that the results of this attempt at a friendly forced empire are unworkable and unrealistic. Those supporting the occupation and wider neocon agenda believe it will result in new American clout in the region and a more stable and prosperous world.

As events progress, each American who truly seeks the best for his/her country must decide at what point enough evidence emerges that we are being misled. This emerging evidence includes not only facts on the ground in the Mideast, but also the exposure of deception from within the present Executive Branch.

There is some shame in having been deceived at the outset, but that shame is greatly deepened by continual blind following of a fatally flawed crusade. It does not require changing political alignments to face the realities. Republicans are defecting. Conservatives are dissenting. Experienced and respected veterans are dissenting. There is no requirement to become a ____ (fill in the blank for the political affiliation you revile most) in order to wake up to reality.

The Occupation and breakup of Iraq is now an inevitability. A backlash of terrorism against America's sense of impunity and superiority is now an inevitability. An unprecedented level of political isolation of America is now an inevitability. The die is already cast in the results of the misguided Bushevik agenda.

The choice for concerned Americans across the entire political spectrum is how far we wish to run our reputation and world standing toward ruin. Pax Americana has clearly been rejected by the outside world we so critically depend on economically, and we must adjust to that fact. The sooner, the better.

Get out of Iraq.

Waders, that was a standing ovation reply. applause applause:)

Were up to our arms in the middle east. I suspect that bush will go after Iran soon. Is this acceptable?

America is in danger of drowning. We are in danger of drowning in the blood of this war. The middle east has no shortage of guys that are willing to through their lives away for the glory of allah. Do we have the young men and coffins to house our response to them?

Iraq has come apart. It has fractured into 4 parts. This will be hard to reverse. The national congress can only agree to disagree.

People are people. No matter where they are from and no matter what they make. A poor man is the same in essence to a rich man. The differences are the roads taken.

Iraqis are people. Would we turn our backs on fellow humans? If we do this for the Iraqis we should go around the world and dismantle every dictatorship.

The United States as the world's military power has a choice. Will it forsake its principals of freedom and humanism or will it stand firm and make the last strides needed on the behalf of humanity?

Both sides lead to the same thing. Proving the UN defunct. Hopefully a pheonix will rise out of the ashes and form a true world government. Thus bringing the world under 1 state with all peoples with elected representatives in a federation government. This is the end generation of America being the central world power. Let the torch be passed not to a nation but to all of humanity as the United States declines.

<i>"This is another example of how America is involved where it has little understanding."</i>

Not so. We know what's out there. We are just one of the few nations that would dare to take on the challenge. Sheesh, we're not the frech or germs...we have balls.

<i>"The occupation of Iraq will be more ugly in many ways than the current fighting, as far as the American public's comfort level and sense of orientation (pardon the pun) are concerned. US occupation forces and their token accomplices will be in closer than ever interface with thousands of people willing to kill them to expell forces that are and will be widely perceived as colonialist oppressors."</i>

I disagree. My bet is that they will soon realize the sweat difference once their despot and his henchmen are removed.

<i>"As the occupation continues, instability will increase including continuous insurrection, and animosity will increase from not only most every country bordering Iraq, but from the entire world. As the Arab and Muslim worlds become more enraged with each gory news report, a widening of the conflict is inevitable."</i>

Or, just the opposite. Rather than building palaces and purchasing weapons, Iraqi oil revenues might actually be used towards the advantage of the Iraqi people--health, welfare, and prosperity.

<i>"Those opposed to occupation of Iraq have long been warning of popular rejection of US hegemony, and have long been warning of increased instability including global terrorism. "</i>

Opposed to our authority in favor of whose doctrine? Saddams? Also, do you really believe that American passivity will protect us from world terrorism? Look, the dogs are at our door now, froth on their lips. You will never make peace with a rabbid animal. It's best to shoot it now before you are bitten. We will see rabbid terrorism diminish as we remove their sources of infection. The world is a very small place.

<i>"Decide who has greater situational awareness, and then take a look forward: Those opposed to the occupation of Iraq expect that the results of this attempt at a friendly forced empire are unworkable and unrealistic. Those supporting the occupation and wider neocon agenda believe it will result in new American clout in the region and a more stable and prosperous world."</i>

A region where poverty and religious fervor rule, fueling both hatred and envy towards American power, that's what most Americans see. Our image as an empire is being used by those who stand high on the ignorance of islamic faith. It is a selfperpetuating situation there, one which serves only those who would prosper and exploit the miseries of the surfs.

<i>"As events progress, each American who truly seeks the best for his/her country must decide at what point enough evidence emerges that we are being misled. This emerging evidence includes not only facts on the ground in the Mideast, but also the exposure of deception from within the present Executive Branch."</i>

Conjecture.

<i>"There is some shame in having been deceived at the outset, but that shame is greatly deepened by continual blind following of a fatally flawed crusade. It does not require changing political alignments to face the realities. Republicans are defecting. Conservatives are dissenting. Experienced and respected veterans are dissenting. There is no requirement to become a ____ (fill in the blank for the political affiliation you revile most) in order to wake up to reality."</i>

<i><b>"...face the realities.</b></i>

Interesting. Do you believe the second largest oil reserve in the world has no consequence where our national security is involved? Should we leave Saddam to manage that resource?

<i>"The Occupation and breakup of Iraq is now an inevitability. A backlash of terrorism against America's sense of impunity and superiority is now an inevitability. An unprecedented level of political isolation of America is now an inevitability. The die is already cast in the results of the misguided Bushevik agenda."</i>

There will always be malcontents.

<i>"The choice for concerned Americans across the entire political spectrum is how far we wish to run our reputation and world standing toward ruin. Pax Americana has clearly been rejected by the outside world we so critically depend on economically, and we must adjust to that fact. The sooner, the better."</i>

America, once again, leads the ways; and the world, eventually, will follow. No adjustment is needed when the cause is just and necessary.

<i>"Get out of Iraq."</i>

Free Iraq

"…the dogs are at our door now, froth on their lips. You will never make peace with a rabbid animal. It's best to shoot it now before you are bitten. We will see rabbid terrorism diminish as we remove their sources of infection. The world is a very small place."

Yes, the world is an ever-smaller place. But our enemies are not rabid dogs or animals. Because they are people, reacting just as Americans would if the tables were turned, they will not accept "pacification" by force. This occupation is inextricable from former colonialism and the destruction of Palestine as far as majority Arab and Muslim opinion is concerned, and this provides an inexhaustible reservoir of rebellion.

"A region where poverty and religious fervor rule, fueling both hatred and envy towards American power, that's what most Americans see..."

Which is why they are making a colossal mistake. The good in America is not envied- it is much emulated and respected. But there is a sharp disconnect between opinions about American lifestyles and American foreign policy. And especially in Iraq, these perceptions cross religious and economic boundaries. Things are not so simple as you might think. Iraqis in specific, and Arabs in general, know far more about America than Americans know about the Arab world.

"America, once again, leads the ways; and the world, eventually, will follow. No adjustment is needed when the cause is just and necessary. ."

Get ready to adjust, Bowser.

Do me a favor and paste my edit into that quote on your post:

"A region where poverty and religious fervor rule, fueling both hatred and envy towards American power, that's what most Americans see." :D

As for your reply, it's time to resolve those differences on which you point out. Hope for the best deliverence.

Time will tell. I'll continue to hope for the best and protest the factors for the worst.

Originally posted by Bowser
Everyone knows that occupation is part of what's to come. Now, if we can only convert them into Christians. Give it time and we will. :D

What an idiotic post. The west have occupied that east before for hundreds of years and was never able to make any cultural, language, or religious influence. The only thing that the arabic countries got from the English occupations was the bad habit of excessive drinking of tea. Keep going to the Andes for Chrisitan missionaries, there is no ears or room in the arab world for you.....Muslims are far more advanced in the subject of religion than christians will ever be.

Originally posted by Bowser
<i>"This is another example of how America is involved where it has little understanding."</i>

Not so. We know what's out there. We are just one of the few nations that would dare to take on the challenge. Sheesh, we're not the frech or germs...we have balls.You talk as if testosterone is the most important tool for conflict resolution. Where are you from, anyway -- the streets of Compton? Real men don't swagger and real men don't need to pepper every conversation with references to sex organs, because real men have more to say than that.My bet is that they will soon realize the sweat difference once their despot and his henchmen are removed.At least you're offering a rational argument this time. There is hope. They used to say that conservatives were thinkers and liberals were feelers. It seems that now the roles are reversed. Liberals offer reasoned, compelling arguments against war. Conservatives swear at us and call us names and appeal to our darkest emotions: hatred, fear, patriotism, and racial and religious intolerance.Do you believe the second largest oil reserve in the world has no consequence where our national security is involved? Should we leave Saddam to manage that resource?No. I believe that the nation that leads the world in science should start weaning us off of fossil fuels. If Saddam gets to keep his oil fields, American SUVs will start running out of gas in 70 years. If we take them away from him, they will start running out of gas in 100 years. The only difference is whether it's your grandchildren or your great-grandchildren to whom you wish to leave such a horrible legacy. Wake up and smell the disappearing petroleum. Your argument is typical 21st Century American Corporate Short-Term Thinking at its worst. "Give me my gasoline and screw the future generations."America, once again, leads the way; and the world, eventually, will follow. No adjustment is needed when the cause is just and necessary.Geeze, and for a few weeks I thought you kids were actually getting a better education than your coke-head parents. Don't you think the Babylonians, Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Mongols, Mayans, Aztecs, Incas, Spaniards, Ottomans, Brits, Nazis, and Soviets uttered those exact same utterly foolish words??? And where are they now? No empire lasts forever. Ours might go on for a few hundred more years if we don't go deliberately marching into historical oblivion to make Cheney's buddies a little richer.

I don't really care too much about Iraq because the people there have brought about their own difficulties. What I do care about is this country, and I don't want America to drag itself down by following a moron leader the way Iraq did.

occupation is the natural order of tacticts with intervention - I don't see why a country intervenes only to leave immediately they always hang around & seeing as US wants to intervene it will occupy for that is the natural way of aggression

Only trouble is, try one's own "natural way of aggression" where one is outnumbered, and one eventually gets one's solitary ass kicked, no matter how big a club one wields. Even if you bring one or two cavemen along in your "coalition". Nobody is coming to the rescue on this adventure when it gets klipnockie. The entire remainder of the world can't wait to say, along with the French, "yoo stupide Americaines".

The Romans occupied almost all of sub-Scandinavian Europe plus England and much of the Mideast all the way into Egypt. What it got them was a government and a military spread so thin that they couldn't retreat fast enough and rebuild a strong enough central army to defend their homeland against the next wave of barbarians. Sound creepily familiar?

The Spaniards, the Ottomans, the English -- they all occupied huge swaths of the Earth. But somehow that didn't seem to be the right formula for guaranteeing their eternal success. Japan and Germany both got the crap kicked out of them at a time when their occupied territories actually formed a buffer zone around their homelands, and it didn't help. The USSR occupied everything they could get their hands on, and they imploded because of a defective economic principle.

And I'm not even talking about the effects of the occupation on the conquered peoples. Those are some of the most dishonorable tales in the history books. Spanish priests burning the entire written records of the Aztec people, the only ones in the New World who had even developed a written language. The fate of the Armenians at the hand of the Turks or the Jews under Hitler. The humiliation of India by England and Korea by Japan.

Occupation doesn't seem to accomplish anything worthy, whereas its downside is literally atrocious.

Findroirich, if you are suggesting that occupying another nation is a good thing, you had better be prepared to defend that hypthesis. Several thousand years of history say you are dead wrong.

That sounds like an Irish name. Don't you guys already know all anyone needs to know about occupation: it sucks?

We occupied Japan and Germany and look at them now. They are one of the G-8

Originally posted by Salty
We occupied Japan and Germany and look at them now. They are one of the G-8

I think we were talking about Britich, France, Ottoman, and other civilzations as occupiers. As far as the US, I don't think they are as evil as others and use the methods for occuping.

US is not really occuping Germany or Japan, just made sure to disarm them and stabilized them and left them alone. They get our protection if someone decided to play bad. I think Germany and Japan are good models of what is to become of Iraq.....the only difference is that Iraq is much richer and the people are much smarter, so the prospects are excellent.

japan's g8 status is a result of occupation? the war destroyed their economy!
industrialization started well before ww2

Industrial and Political Change in the Meiji State.

The Meiji government abolished feudalism; the daimyos were replaced by nationally appointed prefects in 1871. The new centralized administration expanded state power to carry out economic and social change. Samurai officials were sent to Europe and the United States to study their economies, technologies, and political systems. Between 1873 and 1876 the government abolished the samurai class and its state stipends. Most samurai became impoverished and revolt resulted in 1877. The reformed army, based on national conscription, quickly triumphed. Samurai continued to exist; many sought opportunities in commerce and politics. By 1889 the political
reconstruction was complete. Political parties had formed on regional levels. The Meiji created a new conservative nobility from former nobles and Meiji leaders; they sat in a British-style House of Peers. The bureaucracy was reorganized, expanded, and opened to those taking civil service examinations. The constitution of 1889 gave major authority to the emperor and lesser power to the lower house of the Diet. High property qualifications limited the right to vote to about 5% of the male population. The system gave
power to an oligarchy of wealthy businessmen and former nobles that controlled political currents into the 20th century. Japan had imitated the West, but had retained its own identity.

Japan's Industrial Revolution.

Japan's reorganization went beyond political life. A Western-style army and navy was created. New banks were established to fund trade and provide investment capital. Railways and steam vessels improved national communications. Many old restrictions on commerce, such as guilds and internal tariffs, were removed. Land reform cleared the way for individual ownership and stimulated production. Government initiative dominated manufacturing because of lack of capital and unfamiliar technology. A Ministry of Industry was created in 1870 to establish overall economic policy and operate certain industries. Model factories were created to provide industrial experience, and an expanded education system offered technical training. Private enterprise was involved in the growing economy, especially in textiles. Entrepreneurs came from all social ranks. By the 1890s huge industrial combines (zaibatsu) had been formed. Thus by 1900 Japan was fully engaged in an industrial revolution. Its success in managing foreign influences was a major accomplishment, but Japan before World War I was still
behind the West. It depended upon Western imports - equipment and coal - and world economic conditions. Successful exports required inexpensive labor, often poorly paid women. Labor organization efforts were repressed..

as for germany

Sixteen European countries responded by cooperating on a general reconstruction plan that was accepted by the United States. In the end, a total of $13.6 billion (equivalent to $88 billion in 1997 money) was appropriated to the plan. The Marshall Plan was a success. By 1950, the participating countries had returned to, or exceeded, their prewar production levels.

these countries merely rebuilt what was bombed out of existence by the allies!

Marshall aid came with "conditionality" - countries wishing to participate had to agree to:

* Develop multilateral payment and trade within Europe
* Move toward currency convertibility
* Move toward eliminating discrimination against U.S. imports
* Encourage reductions in public spending
* Relax government controls such as rationing
* Increase exports to the United States

marshall plan (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/60/023.html)

that's right spookz, that's the story I remember about Japan. They were destroyed by WWII, then built themselves back up. I don't think America occupied them or germany. Japan and Germany were not allowed though after WWII to develop military powers.

Japan was occupied by American troops from 1945 to 1952. They rebuilt their economy under the guidance from General Douglas McCarthur.
During the Korean war 50-53 all of the trucks that were used by American forces were built in Japan. That was a key factor in getting the Japanese auto industry started.

http://www.cyberessays.com/History/98.htm

American forces occupied West germany from 1945 to 1955.
West Berlin was occupied from 1945 to "1990". Scroll to the bottom of the folowing link to verify "occupation years and dates"

http://www.amervets.com/replacement/aoc.htm

Originally posted by heflores
I think we were talking about Britich, France, Ottoman, and other civilzations as occupiers. As far as the US, I don't think they are as evil as others and use the methods for occuping.


Ohh sorry my bad :(

Those nations Europeans nations more of colonialized then what the US does also.