> Germany or any of the other European nations with US bases not
Never said anything about them as not relevant in the context of this convo. But Germany's Basic Law was also shaped while they were under occupation. Main difference I'd say is the US mostly played a supervisory role there (since it was a collective Allied occupation) rather than the one doing the writing.
> The SDF is very capable[...]
Doesn't really matter; point is the status was forced on them by another, and they can't change that status on their own whether they want to or not. Theoretically, the people could vote it away. Practically, if the US isn't fully on board, there won't even be a vote.
> Main difference I'd say is the US mostly played a supervisory role there
Does it matter? So this is about history. Not today.
Well history says the US came from... so are we going to add that argument? Then none of the places you mentioned are superior to 1 another and the whole argument is moot.
It's more a matter of logic and human nature. The Japanese have been essentially traumatized from being nuked and then being officially occupied by the US for years (unofficially still occupied, given all those military bases). A good amount are against doing anything that'll "rock the boat". General MacAuthor (the guy who led the invasion and occupation of Japan as well as made their Constitution) designed the Constitution so it's extremely difficult to update (need a super majority of the Diet, before a national referendum). A continuous, overt US presence means they can easily apply a little pressure to prevent any Constitutional changes, while any actions without such change would be illegal (and the Japanese are generally sticklers for the law). If there was anything that the US really wanted to change (can't think of anything, since it serves them well as is) they can always start a campaign, perhaps similar to La Tilde[0].
This[1] gives an idea of just how difficult it is to change the Constitution (there have been 0 amendments to date).
I really can't say much about Europe as I haven't done any research about any countries there.
It's a matter of you arguing over semantics. Useless ones too.
The US and in particular, the current president Trump has shown it is all useless. Every government has enough levers and workarounds to make it happen.
Trump has classified the attacks on Iran as "self-defense" so self-defense force, whatever... does it matter?
> and the Japanese are generally sticklers for the law
No, they're not. As usual you just take it at face value and read fake news. Japan's actual prosecution rate is ~30-40%. Post-indictment conviction rate is 99%. Guess why? They fudge the numbers, cheat the system and make it up.
Never said anything about them as not relevant in the context of this convo. But Germany's Basic Law was also shaped while they were under occupation. Main difference I'd say is the US mostly played a supervisory role there (since it was a collective Allied occupation) rather than the one doing the writing.
> The SDF is very capable[...]
Doesn't really matter; point is the status was forced on them by another, and they can't change that status on their own whether they want to or not. Theoretically, the people could vote it away. Practically, if the US isn't fully on board, there won't even be a vote.