[ericjang]

are you sure that would happen? Make no mistake, I get that Western powers do have cultural and economic agendas (McDonald republics and such). But if you look at Japan and South Korea, they didn't really have significant protests or any "installed leaders".

[narism]

What? The US basically wrote the Japanese constitution and Syngman Rhee was elected largely based on the backing of occupation forces.

[edogg]

Is that a bad thing? Seems like Japan is a pretty nice place to live.

[vvwvvwvvw]

The Japanese was not projected to be big enough of a population to be a threat to the US.

[AntiImperialist]

Japan has had installed leaders since the WWII. The occupying army is still there.

South Korea has had installed leaders since the Korean War.

[NikolaeVarius]

Hah what?

The US hated Shinzo Abe for the longest damn time, didn't stop him from being re-elected multiple times.

Also, its not appropriate to call the forces still in Japan an "occupying army". There is a joint forces treaty in place, and Japan has multiple times refused to amend Article 9 of their constitution

In South Korea, they've deposed the previous President. Seems like the US is doing a bad job installing leaders there.

[AntiImperialist]

Yes, there are forces which are fighting to kick out the occupying forces and there are forces keeping them in check. Long gone are the days of occupying forces marching and parading. It's shadow governments and pawns now.