Talk:United States invasion of Panama

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States invasion of Panama article.
Article policies
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
SICA ZP
Latin America Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Central America, which collaborates on articles related to Central America. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
This page is listed on the bounty board

Jun-Dai has pledged to make a donation of $40 to the Wikimedia Foundation when this page is improved to featured article status.
This page is listed on the bounty board

Louis waweru has pledged to make a donation of $20 to the Wikimedia Foundation when this page is improved to featured article status.  

This bounty expires December 20, 2008.

Contents

[edit] Explanation for invasion

'tension' is not an acceptable explanation for the military invasion of another country.

-199.245.163.1

America invaded Panama to secure access to the canal until handover in 1999. Noreiga was by 1989 a very unstable leader and despite American/CIA backing for years they removed him and put in place politicians would do America's bidding in relation to the canal.

Holden 27

It seems this information is indeed not very well covered on this article. Could you do us all a favour and, after researching the subject, adding the required background here? JFW | T@lk 00:49, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, it needs to be explained. Basically, the invasion was decided after the government of Noriega declared a state of war with the United States. When such thing happen, would you rather wait to be attacked or take the initiative? The U.S. opted to take the initiative. Why did Noriega declared a state of war in the first place is a different question. =) —Joseph | Talk 02:22, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

Here is the background information: [1] —Joseph | Talk 02:35, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

Well that is certainly one point of view, but there are others (e.g. the various Chomsky references, and others in the article) What you are saying is the reason the United States claimed the invasion was carried out. Whether that was the proximate cause is clearly a matter of opinion since there are competing reasons. So please, if you make a change, you must cleary state that the reason you stated is the reason the US military alleged. Anything else is POV.CSTAR 03:41, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Uh, sorry to burst your bubble, but Noam Chomsky is a leftist crackpot known for making wild allegations against every major American military action of the post Vietnam era. His "opinion" (always unsupported by any type of hard evidence other than his own bloviating) is only that, and cannot be used to form the basis of any NPOV article.**
In the above comment, I did not say Chomsky's comments should be the basis of the article; I said there were many opinions about the reasons for the invasion. Moreover, if you compare with opinions of many Latin Americans, his opinions are moderate. Again that doesn't make the opinion right or wrong. You are right that his opinion alone should not determine what is said in the article and it hardly does. Thanks for commenting!--CSTAR 15:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
As a matter of fact there were at least 4 reasons given by G. W, H. Bush to invade Panama. (New York Times, Dec 21, 1989 A Transcript of Bush's Address on the Decision to Use Force in Panama) I will give explicit references to other New York Times articles for relevant information. Also a little more on the international background to the invasion is needed who supported it, who opposed it etc. But keep in mind that this article cannot be written from the perspective of the GWH Bush administration. CSTAR 04:15, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
RE: Keep in mind that this article cannot be written from the perspective of the GWH Bush administration.
Yes it can, it it has.

I noticed that the American article about the invasion merely shows up the opinion of the US government at that time and there is no critical discussion whatsoever. Interestingly the articles in other languages (I checked 5 other languages) don't share the same opinion. In particular they take into account the economic interests of the US as reason to invade. - obviously as government you can't indicate that as reason and have to "arrange" for some other reason.

===Need Some Info=== I'm not entirely savvy on the details of Op Just Cause, but I heard a rumor the other day that I can't totally corroborate, hopefully you all can help. I know we dropped A LOT of troops on Panama that evening, but someone told me that one particular chaulk of paratroopers got stuck in a mud flat (read: sitting ducks). I know this may have happened at LZ OCELOT, but the rumor mentioned something about bad intelligence about canal levels, and the ANG and Army intelligence units not talking to one another. Does anyone have some usable info on the matter? Teejay769 15:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)TeeJay769

[edit] Noriega's side

The recently added material on Noriega's side of the story, is accurate and NPOV (in my opinion). Would you consider separating it out into a separate paragraph, so that strutcurally it would be clear what were Bush's justifications and what were the percieved reasons by other parties in Panama and around the world? I'll give it a shot if you like and you can revert if it's no good.CSTAR 02:11, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish reporter

A Spanish reporter was killed by US troops. Is it worthy of mention?

Since lots of non-combatants were killed in the invasion, (My best estimate is around 1000) you would need to explain why this is worth mentioning. CSTAR 17:01, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] From Panamanian point of view (opinion)

There is a report on Operation Just Cause covered i believe by CNN news during that time period. It is about an hour long and shows what truly happened in Panama from Panamanian reporters and why so many innocent lives were taken at the risk of capturing Noriega. In my personal opinion, i think there is more to the invasion than George Bush Sr., led the American media to believe. The Panamanian Defense Force itself turned their back on Noriega before the invasion and agreed to hand him over to the U.S. The U.S. refused to take him and instead invaded Panama later. i think they used Noriega as an excuse to invade Panamanian territory and gain possesion and military control of the canal thus ridding Panama of their own military forces. Their "Argument" was that the Panamanian military could not confidently control the canal and secure its safety.

If you can document and state this in a way in which it is clear who is making the claim, then by all means include it.--CSTAR 13:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There is something very insatisfactory about this article, which is not factual innacuracy, but rather the absence of any credible point of view on the Panamanian side, particularly in the first section after the TOC.--CSTAR 02:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Am I misunderstanding? I was under the impression that Nifty Package was a success and we got Noriega that night. As I understand, he's still in prison in Miami, scheduled to be released in 2007. Is this false? And I think from the research I have done this morning that it wasn't the PDF that engaged US forces at the airport, but Third-Country Body guards. Teejay769 16:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Teejay769

[edit] Nifty Package? WTF?

I read the following and thought, this just can't be right: "Just Cause was planned under the name Blue Spoon, and the invasion itself incorporated elements of the Operation Nifty Package and Operation Acid Gambit plans." I've heard it was called blue spoon before, but "nifty package"? "Acid gambit"?? I googled for these terms and all links to nifty package send me back to a wikipedia site. Acid gambit, however, is real, according to this and other such pages. So what's the deal with "nifty package" - can anyone confirm this? Also shouldn't there be a section on the press and the invasion? It seems to me the panama invasion was a turning point (to a lesser extent than grenada) in press restrictions during wartime.--csloat 8 July 2005 22:57 (UTC)

Confirmed From a Journal of Counterterrorism (2000) article: "The plan, designated Operation Acid Gambit, was simple, at least in theory. Aviation support would be provided by MH-6 "Little Birds" from the 160th Special Operations Aviation Group. This agile, unarmed helicopter, a relative of the OH-6 observation helicopter used in Vietnam, was specially outfitted with outboard "benches" designed to ferry up to three commandos on each side. Painted black to facilitate nighttime operations, the small aircraft could conduct rapid insertions and extractions of special operations forces into areas its larger brother, the MH-60 Black Hawk, could not. This same assault package combined with MH-60s's from the 160th, would also be tasked with the apprehension of Manual Noriega himself, in an operation code named 'Nifty Package'." lots of issues | leave me a message 07:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


Yes, it is a sad story that took place at the old Puenta Patea Airport (now a shopping mall):
NIFTY PACKAGE (U.S. 89) A special operation conducted in the opening hours of the American invasion of Panama (JUST CAUSE) to capture, kill or prevent the escape of the Panamanian strongman Manuel Noriega. Based on the GABEL ADDER plan, this operation included a team of elite Navy Seals who destroyed the dictator’s private jet on the ground, but suffered four dead.

A SEAL got the jet with an AT-4 (or maybe a LAW) rocekt, but the team was pretty well wiped out by the 'foreign' body guards. A bad day. Paul, in Saudi 12:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Operation Acid Gambit was an operation conducted by Delta Force operators with Night Stalkers and US Air Force assistance (in the form of an MH-6 and AC-130 gunship, respectively). The operation conducted was the rescue of a U.S. citizen Kurt Muse from a prison controlled by Noriega (Muse had been making radio broadcasts against Noriega). The operation lasted six minutes with a single casualty--one Delta operator was injured while loading onto the MH-6.--SOCL 16:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Would you please put that in the article itself (not just a reference?)--CSTAR 16:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
I will get to it on Thursday (my weekend). Of course the real story of Muse is more exciting.

ACID GAMBIT (U.S. 89) A plan to rescue Central Intelligence Agency operative Kurt Muse from a Panamanian prison in which he was held in 1989. Muse had been arrested while attempting to set up a covert anti-Noriega radio station in Panama City. Political considerations delayed the raid by the elite “Delta Force” until the United States invaded Panama to topple the local dictator (JUST CAUSE). The rescue went smoothly, and was carried out more quickly than any of the elaborate rehearsals. The helicopter flying Muse out crashed shortly after leaving the Comandancia. Another aircraft had to rescue him from the crash.

GWB (former CIA chief) was vey eager to get KM out of there. Guys at SOUTHCOM were walking the White House through the op live as it happened. The crash of the helicopter onto the tidal mud flats was the trick ending. Paul, in Saudi 18:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I like to think that when Bush was asked for the reason he invaded Panama he said "Just 'cause".

[edit] Casualties??

someone edited civilian casualties to 500-4.000? whats the source? this is news to me. I've seen a lot of information on the operation, but I've never heard of this number. --James Bond 06:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a range depending on the source, some of which are listed in the article. --CSTAR 06:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Casualties??

Why does the US side of the box list people that were wounded, while the panama side only lists people that were killed? Ojw 19:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I added the casualties figures to the box. I didnt list a Panamanian wounded number simply because I could not find one. --James Bond 11:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ramsey Clark has a NPOV?!?

Could we find a more NPOV independent study than one done by Ramsey Clark. --BohicaTwentyTwo 19:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Concerns

I have some NPOV concerns about this whole article, but particularly the section called "International reaction." The last three paragraphs are devoted to expressing doubts about the U.S. motivations and fears about ulterior motives. First, these are all unsourced. Phrases like "widely viewed," "perceived throughout Latin America," "considered to be", and "generally believed" raise red flags. If these reactions occurred, then cite a source or attribute them to somebody. Otherwise, they're just unsubstantiated opinion.

I think the last paragraph is particuarly egregious, because it concludes "these fears had some credibility." In fact, the things that were reportedly feared to be the real motivations for the invasion did not ultimately happen The U.S. did not restablish military bases (or increase it's military presence), they did not overturn the treaties ceding control of the canal, and democracy was restored after Noriega's ouster.

Contrast this section with the first one, "Reasons for invasion." The structure is to present President Bush's statement, followed by criticism that essentially dismisses his rationale. Is that really NPOV? There's an imbalance between these two sections.

I'm not opposed to including critcism of the U.S., in fact I believe strongly that it should be included. But this reads too much like one person's opinion. It's not encylopedic at all.

Anson2995 16:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I suggest you place the marker {{fact}} (which looks like [citation needed])after the relevant paragraphs to note that references are needed. I really don't see that there is much doubt about these facts in general terms, however. So some references to support (possibly weakened) versions of these assertions shouldn't be too hard to find.--CSTAR 16:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, CSTAR. I've gone ahead and done that. Please note that I'm, not arguing that these criticisms didn't exist or even necessarily asking for citations to back them up. I'm primarily saying that this section is very poorly written.
For example: "It is generally believed that during that time the United States did little to curtail his involvement in drug trafficking." Generally believed by whom? Was this belief based on anything substantive or was it just idle gossip? Were the beliefs borne out by any evidence? A better sentence might be something like "Noriega had been on the CIA payroll since 1967, despite evidence that he was deeply involved in drug trafficking. The U.S. indicted him on federal drug charges in 1988." Citation or not, that's a presentation of fact rather than of opinion.
And again, I don't think it's NPOV to document criticism of the U.S. motivation without also documenting whether or not those criticisms turned out to be fair. There's too much in this article about why the operation took place and too little about the results. Did the U.S. inrease its military presence? Was democracy restored? Were the treaties protected? Was drug trafficking combated? Without that sort of information, this article seems to me to be nothing more than a criticism of the U.S. action. There's very little in here that's critical of Noriega or the PDF, criticism that would tend to support the views of President Bush. There's no mention of the human rights abuses, the rigged election, or the murder of opposition leaders, all of which are an important part of understanding the U.S. motivations. If the anti-Noriega view can't be presented here, then the anti-U.S. view shouldn't be presented either Anson2995 18:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Re: There's no mention of the human rights abuses, the rigged election, or the murder of opposition leaders, all of which are an important part of understanding the U.S. motivations. If the anti-Noriega view can't be presented here, then the anti-U.S. view shouldn't be presented either
I don't think that claim about the article is true: the human right abuses and the rigged election are both mentioned. Moreover, there is a lot of information about the murder of opposition leaders in other WP articles which are linked to this one. As far as balance, the justification given by Bush is there in the article without any commentary. What else do you think is necessary?
Re: "It is generally believed that during that time the United States did little to curtail his involvement in drug trafficking." " I agree, I think your formulation is better.
Re Was democracy restored?. The article does mention that elections have taken place regularly since then and that Panama has a free press (or some such thing).
On balance, I think that that modulo the need for citations and the sentence you reformulated, the article is fair. --CSTAR 19:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
It is not neutral to enumerate the official reasons given by the US exclusively under "reasons for the attack". The widely criticized invasion that arguably broke the UN Charter is suspected internationally to have had very different reasons, as implicated in the international reactions section. Añoranza 16:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Only the attacking country can say why it did that. Its not POV to state their reasons in its own section. Normally an article like this would have a seperate criticism section, however this one is called international reactions apparently even though they are all negative and criticism. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
It is not neutral to reproduce propaganda under a neutral title that prominently and ban criticism to the end of the article. We do not have a large official Nazi section on the justification of the holocaust either. Añoranza 16:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The reasons cited by the government is not propaganda. Its the reasons as cited by the government. Perhaps we should remove all mention of the US reason, and any criticism of the war as well to balance it out, however as you know: NPOV:Undue Weight does not allow only criticism to be posted. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Please inform yourself about what propaganda means. Of course it would be equally biased only to represent the criticism, both parts are needed but neutrally represented. Añoranza 17:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you should expand the international reaction section then? Also the holocaust was not a war, in case you are confused about that. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The complaint was not that the international reactions section is too small but that the US stated reasons are positioned prominently directly after the intro. Propaganda names can be used whether a war or not, your comment is off-topic. Añoranza 01:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I already addressed that issue. If you feel placement is the problem, which is now a new reason, then move the Internation Reaction below it ... --zero faults |sockpuppets| 01:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Propaganda title

As "Operation Just Cause" is obviously a propaganda term and analyzed as such in the article itself it is inappropriate as the title for an article that is about what happened and not about the propaganda term itself. Añoranza 15:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this a request for opinions or simply a warning. Can I see the policy stating your above comments? Perhaps "Being Bold" should also take into consideration other people. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 16:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
This is so obvious that I do not request other opinions, and for wikipedia policy just take a look at NPOV. Añoranza 17:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Añoranza, you have made your edits under the claim of removing the POV of this article; the title may indeed be determined to POV. However, by dismissing these titles as "POV" and "propaganda" without discussion seems awfully ironic. Let's determine a consensus. --tomf688 (talk - email) 19:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The article itself explains why the title is propaganda. Protecting the article under that title without placing an NPOV tag is obscene. Añoranza 22:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not adverse to renaming the article, provided there is consensus for it. The alternate name should be specific enough to distinguish this operation from others, something like "1989 United States invasion of Panama". Moreover, it should be stated that "Just Cause" was the operational name adopted by the US military (specifically avoid use of the word propaganda in the section heading). It currently says that the name is hardly used outside official US circles (e.g. military, state department). --CSTAR 23:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Operational names are chosen for propaganda purposes, and this is a very obvious example. The repeated argumentation "it is official, thus no propaganda" disturbs me. Is it really that easy to pull the wool over wikipedians' eyes? Would you write the same if it was an "official" Nazi term? Añoranza 23:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
There is a wide swath of territory that is covered by the term "propaganda." Public relations is arguably propaganda, advertising is propaganda (as you undoubtedly know in spanish these two terms are virtually indistinguishable) but in the english wikipedia it is generally preferred to distinguish them. I don't think we are pulling wool over anybody's eyes. I for one would be very sceptical of an encyclopedia which uses the word propaganda too much. Wikipedia may not be worth much, but by using "propaganda" as you suggest, it would have even less value.--CSTAR 23:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
A miltary invasion of a foreign country named "just cause", what could be more propaganda? Añoranza 00:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Operation names are what they are. Removing all of them from Wikipedia is removing valuable content. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 00:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
As you know very well, I never wanted any operation names to be completely removed. I do not want "final solution of the Jewish question" removed either. It is just inappropriate to refer to conflicts with the name given to them just by one party. As this article is about the Panama invasion and most articles that link here refer to the invasion, too, using the name of one party's military is inappropriate. Añoranza 00:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
We use Holocaust do we not? We use Cold War do we not? If you want to prove your sincerity how about you wage a war against the term Cold War as it was created by a US politician. The truth is its not about propaganda terms or operations terms, its about the military, such as can be seen by your edits in Iraq War. I would be tempted to believe you if you had not gone on a spree attempting to remove certain terms from Wikipedia entirely and even without merit for other peoples work or the inconsistencies you were creating or redundant statements. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 00:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
You were refuted a zillion times about your cold war analogy, but as you seem to like it so much I tell you again: cold war is not biased as it does not favor any side. Añoranza 01:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Its not biased to hide the fact that numerous nations were invaded and wars took place on their soil? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 01:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Please check what bias means. "Just cause" clearly favors the US government view of the conflict while Cold war does not favor any side. Añoranza 01:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
My involvement in this conversation is done. If you feel the article needs to be renamed start a poll and garner concensus, make sure you follow Wikipedia:Straw_polls when creating it. Thank you. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 01:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Without commenting directly on which title this article should have (that's a question that should be strongly influenced by which term is predominantly used in outside sources when discussing this topic), I'd like to address your question about "official Nazi terms": yes, we really would. See, for example, Operation Barbarossa, Operation Blue, Operation Edelweiss. (Same thing for Soviet terms, if anyone is wondering: Operation Bagration, Operation Uranus, etc.)
All operation names are, by definition, chosen only by one side; for this reason, we prefer not to use them unless they are the most common way to refer to the even in question. Where this is the case, however, we do not shy away from using them. Kirill Lokshin 01:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
The external links support the term Operation Just Cause. BBC calls it that, even Noam Chomsky calls it that, if you know of Chomsky you would know why thats significant. Just look at the sources, it says enough, this users claim that only military professionals are familiar with it is ludacris and unfounded. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 01:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Meh, online sources tend not to be the most reliable in such cases. I don't necessarily dispute your point, though; just for comparison, a sampling of other references
  • Phillips & Axelrod, Encyclopedia of Wars → "United States Invasion of Panama (Operation Just Cause)"
  • Donnelly, Operation Just Cause: The Storming of Panama → obvious
  • McConnell, Just Cause: The Real Story of America's High-Tech Invasion of Panama → also obvious
It would probably be useful to do a more thorough literature survey to see what title other sources—particularly other encyclopedias—use. Kirill Lokshin 01:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't like the title much myself -- something like "United States invasion of Panama in 1989" would be more neutral and straightforward. Unlike Operation Barbarossa or Edelweiss or Uranus, "Just Cause" is a name which inevitably is meant to have POV implications (in the same way, Operation Iraqi Freedom is not the title of the article we use for the on-going situation). However of course the MOS says we should use the title which would be best known in English, though I'm not sure how that interacts with our policies on NPOV (I suspect NPOV will always trump).
I did a JSTOR search for "Operation Just Cause" and got almost no articles with that in the title -- most had titles like "The Validity of United States Intervention in Panama under International Law", "The World before and after the 1989 Invasion of Panama ", and "The Panama Invasion Revisited: Lessons for the Use of Force in the Post Cold War Era". I'm just putting that out there. --Fastfission 02:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
If we were to switch it to the other title, could we leave off "in 1989"? Are there other U.S. invasions of Panama that have (or could have) articles? Kirill Lokshin 02:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Britannica uses "Invasion of Panama". It doesn't even contain the operation name. Just as a note. A google search for "invasion of Panama" gets slightly more results than "Operation Just Cause". And apparently even Noam Chomsky doesn't always use the military codeword. ;-) I'm happy with leaving off the 1989, sure. In my head I think I was getting the U.S. intervention in Panama's revolution confused with an invasion originally. --Fastfission 02:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to change the name -- I included 1989, because arguably US military interventions in Panama have a long history, but I'm not insistent on that either. We just need to agree on a name. I do object to refering the operation name as chosen for "propaganda" reasons, prefering instead the current phrasing "public relations" reasons. I also object to changing the order of sections. Perhaps rename "Reasons for .." to "Background" and make it clear that the reasons given first are simply the US administration's account of events. If there is consensus, I will do these changes myself.--CSTAR 03:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

PS. At least one of the photographs, while of interest from the point of view of US military history, I think is decidedly non-neutral. Again, I have no objection to pictures, and won't press this point, but this is arguably POV and may lead to objections in the future. --CSTAR 03:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

Well, Fastfission's research suggests that "Invasion of Panama" is the more commonly used form, so I have no objections to moving this to any of:
depending on taste and need to disambiguate. I would think that either of the first two would be better, since they avoid the grammatical mess of using "United States" as an adjective. Kirill Lokshin 03:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I propose (2) (i.e. Invasion of Panama (1989)). Is there a consensus for this? I agree that using the operational name adopted by the DoD seems a bit "provincial".--CSTAR 15:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I support #1; how many times has Panama been invaded? Does it really need a descriptive title? --tomf688 (talk - email) 15:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Incursions by the US military into Panama have occurred in various instances in the last century. I'm not sure I would call these invasions, but some latin-american historians have indeed done so.--CSTAR 15:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it should stay as Operation Just Cause. I have not seen a wikipedia policy on Operation names not being useable. Considering most of the sources that can be checked also call it Operation Just Cause it makes little sense to call it something noone else is calling it.--zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with Invasion of Panama, or Invasion of Panama (1989). The latter being more descriptive if we have more then one such invasion. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be Invasion of Panama or United States Invasion of Panama. Which really does not matter since the other should be a redirect. Operation Just Cause should be a redirect. I don't think we need to have (1989) in the title until there is a need to disambiguate. At the moment there is no need to do this. The main thing is that people searching should find what they are after. When I search for Invasion of Panama and see an article headed 'Operation Just Cause' I immediately think 'why is there a POV piece of propaganda here'. I don't think 'POV alert' if I do the opposite. --Gorgonzilla 15:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

I\'ve temporarily protected this page because it smells like an edit war is brewing. Please discuss these changes and determine consensus, and I or another admin will unprotect it. Thanks. --tomf688 (talk - email) 19:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Could we agree to return it to a prior state (say this one [2]) and work from there? --CSTAR 19:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
That\'s a fair enough request. --tomf688 (talk - email) 19:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
As the title is obviously propaganda I urge you to put an NPOV tag and insist that it should have been done right away \'\'before\'\' the protection. Furthermore, picking an old version for protection is against wikipedia rules. If you do not undo this immediately I file a complaint. Añoranza 22:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Its the name of a military operation name. I dont see you changing any that are not related to the US. I do not see you challenging the basis for an article on the Holocaust which itself means \"sacrificial offering to God\". You are not attempting to change all mentions of Holocaust to \"WW2 Situation involving certain groups.\" Its your need to change every operation name only when it involves the US, this after a debate where it was proven that operation names were used on Wikipedia when you insisted War on Terrorism should be renamed and not associated with the war itself. Its as POV as Cold War another term made by US politicians to describe a series of political and military situations, it is also a term you should challenge as people in Korea would not agree with the term since it was not \"cold\" when bombs were dropping. --\'\'\'zero faults\'\'\' \'\'|sockpuppets|\'\' 22:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
How many readers will associate the US invasion of Panama with the name \"Operation Just Cause\"? Naming convention is to use the most widely used, most understandable and most neutral name. A propaganda name that most people will not even understand does not meet any of these criteria. If you find any articles with inappropriate Nazi propaganda titles you are welcome to change them. I stumbled over this because an officer accused of war crimes in Iraq had the name in his article. Making unfounded accusations does not shed a good light on the reasons you have here. Añoranza 22:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Aparently all of the editors who created the articles you reverted as well as all the readers who left it and never changed it, they all seem to understand and associate it, also all the books and articles mentioned as sources that also mention it. Do you read the articles you are editing? It seems not if that is your arguement. --\'\'\'zero faults\'\'\' \'\'|sockpuppets|\'\' 00:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
That is just ridiculous. As the current article title is \"operation blabla\", editors who refer to the invasion avoided redirects by using it. Furthermore, most articles linking here are about the military and heavily influenced by military personnel, this in no way reflects whether the average wikipedian knows the propaganda term. And even if everyone knew it, it is still not neutral. Añoranza 00:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Assumptions. --\'\'\'zero faults\'\'\' \'\'|sockpuppets|\'\' 00:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
\"Not neutral\" is not an assumption, it is a plain fact. Añoranza 00:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Your treading water. In one location you are stating you are changing these names cause propaganda, in the other you are stating its cause of a redirect, get your story straight. --\'\'\'zero faults\'\'\' \'\'|sockpuppets|\'\' 01:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I countered your complaint about \"operation iraqi freedom\" with the fact that it is not even the article title and thus changing the link to a neutral term in no way shows bias. I removed \"just cause\" just because it is a propaganda term. Añoranza 01:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Deny all you want, I am done arguing with you, your varied intentions has been documented. I am no longer participating in this discussion with you. If you want, feel free to initiate a poll, but remember straw polls have to have their questions agreed on by the community. --\'\'\'zero faults\'\'\' \'\'|sockpuppets|\'\' 01:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I do not deny anything. I will wait with any further action until the protecting admin returns to undo the picking of his preferred version. Añoranza 01:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Now you are accusing the admin of favoring a side? Where does it end. --\'\'\'zero faults\'\'\' \'\'|sockpuppets|\'\' 01:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I\'m not picking my preferred version. I\'m picking the version that existed prior to your edits. There is a difference. --tomf688 (talk - email) 01:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I support Añoranza and the fight against Imperialist propaganda. ~!70.87.34.82 Stroke out comment by blocked vandal who posted "in my name" in order to throw mud on me. Añoranza 10:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Please respect etiquette and assume good faith. Also be nice and remain civil. --James Bond 08:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed name change

Based on the above discussions and the structure of a similar article for the Invasion of Grenada I propose the following:

  1. Rename the article to Invasion of Panama
  2. Rewrite the introduction as follows
The invasion of Panama, known by the U. S. military as Operation Just Cause, was an invasion of Panama that deposed general and de facto military leader Manuel Noriega in December 1989, during the administration of U.S. President George H. W. Bush.
--CSTAR 15:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I guess we should rename operations such as Operation Desert Fox 1998 Bombing of Iraq as so on, this might get tricky with operations such as Operation Red Dawn. What would you call that?. --James Bond 03:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not big on quibbling about names (although I have to agree that the current name reflects PsyOps) but why do you suggest that these other name changes would be necessary--CSTAR 02:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The current name is hopelessly unencyclopedic and POV. A name chosen for propaganda purposes by one beligerent in a conflict is only acceptable if it is the generally accepted name. But even then few people would refer to the D-Day landings as Operation Overlord or Broadside and if they did they would be refering to the specific battle plans. The only case where it is going to be the case is for articles such as Operation Ajax which are clandestine activities that fall short of an invasion and are not exactly a coup. What we have here is clearly what the article itself admits: Operation Just Cause was the U.S. military invasion of Panama. In the Panama text books this is going to be called the U.S. invasion. The above looks right to me. I would suggest putting in a redirect from Operation Just Cause. Besides which remembering all these Orwellian titles gets tiresome after a while. --Gorgonzilla 18:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to point out this is an english centric encyclopedia, what they put in the spanish centric text book is not a measure for what we put in this encyclopedia. However its been noted what is in a particular encyclopedia. As to the general acceptance of the name, the sources listed state the Operation by name more then half of the time for the weblinks, the books themselves would be even more concise. The date and time at which you entered this conversation has been noted. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 01:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The term used in the English press is the US invasion of Panama. Nobody in England would use the term Operation Just Cause without explanation and the same goes for the New York Times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorgonzilla (talk • contribs)
Can you post some evidence in favor of this, article clippings etc. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Rename to US invasion of Panama as using a propaganda name invented by one side violates neutrality. As after one week we have a 4-1 majority for the name change it should be done. Añoranza 10:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
If there is support for US invasion of Panama (which is fine by me) I think it should be called United States Invasion of Panama.
Re: using a propaganda name invented by one side violates neutrality. Well, it's an unfortunate fact of life that many names do serve as somebody's propaganda. However, I don't think it violates NPOV, provided it is made clear that such names are determined by Psy-Ops. But I agree, Invasion of Panama (or U.S. invasion of Panama) is better.--CSTAR 14:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually most people are saying to just call it Invasion of Panama, which I also agree with. Welcome back. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Very glad to see this change. Using a military operation name for an article like this should automatically be given a second thought and POV check. --Dhartung | Talk 03:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Enclyclopedia Britannica uses "Invasion of Panama" Archtransit 23:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Just for fun, now after the fact... a ProQuest search of the New York Times yields: 31 documents containing "Operation Just Cause" (many of them using it in a critical way — my favorites are editorials called "Operation High Hokum" and "Operation Just Begun") out of a total set of 822 which contain the keywords "invasion" and "panama" from 1989 onwards. "Invasion of Panama" gets 386 hits as a phrase (again, from 1989 to the present). --Fastfission 05:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

What do people in Panama call it? And no jokes! Archtransit 23:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

How many times has Panama been invaded? If the answer is only in 1989, then the title should be 'Invasion of Panama' IMHO.--James Bond 20:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zer0faults

For those interested, an RfC has been filed regarding User:Zer0faults at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zer0faults. Any comments would be appreciated. -- Mr. Tibbs 20:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noriega and CIA

To be honest I had just copied that from out biography about him. I googled and found this As far back as 1959, he was reporting on Panamanian leftists to the Americans. By 1966, he was on the CIA payroll. I will ask at Manuel Noriega. Añoranza 01:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just Cause my ...

I concur, it should be renamed to the neutral title: Nth Invasion of Panamá by the US. I´m sure it´s not the first time. Remember Panama Reds.

[edit] Photo captions

I recieved this from a Ranger buddy of mine:

I did a seach in Wikipedia for: Operation Just Cause.On the resulting page there are a total of three pictures with captions. The very 1st one I am not sure of the unit shown. The other two pictures are TOTALLY wrongly captioned! The first one states: "U.S. Army 7th Infantry Division (light) soldiers prepare to take La Comandancia in the El Chorrillo neighborhood of Panama City, December 1989." I was in the building(Gymnasium) accross the street waiting for the target to get 'prepped' by Apache rockets. Then I made the demo charge to blow the gates and C Co cleared that building. The tree RANGERS shown were mostly 203 gunners from the various C Co squads.
The third picture is shown with the following caption: "Elements of the 7th Infantry Division (light) secure La Comandancia in Panama during Operation Just Cause, December 1989." I can identify 3 of the four soliders shown by name, and they are all from 2nd Plt C Co 3/75th Rgr Rgt.

Additionally, I found that the photos themselves were entitled and captioned as photos of Rangers by their uploaders. Consequently, I have changed the photo captions. EvilCouch 09:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Any soldiers with "mop-tops" on their halmets in Panama were from the 7th ID, the only unit that makes all its soldiers wear "mop-tops". L0b0t 10:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Negative. Rangers were also wearing "mop-tops" during that time-period. See this link for photos from Batt-boys wearing them. EvilCouch 16:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

Edits by User:truth2244 have introduced claims with no hard references: for example,

According to a Washington Post report, c. 1989,

is not acceptable as a citation. Moreover, that entire paragraph as it currently stands is WP:OR, since the relation of the facts there asserted, to the events of the article needs itself a source. In addition, the claim that the Chorillo neighborhood was destroyed to retaliate against Noriega supporters is a dubious interpretation of the documentary.

Pleas note that I have absolutely no objection (nor should anybody!) for insertion of material pro or con, favorable or unfavorable to the US role, provided citations are provided. --CSTAR 03:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed the bit about looting and the Iraq War. Not really relevant to the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.182.158.145 (talk) 19:16, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Post Invasion Government

There is conflicting information regarding the creation of the Panamanian government post invasion. The Los Angeles times article allegedly says that Endara was sworn in at Rodman Naval Base without any other information.

A report prepared for the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1995 says that Endara was sworn in at Quarry Heights (USSOUTHCOM's headquarters) after speaking to General Thurman and U.S. Deputy Chief of Mission in Panama, John Bushnell about Operation Just Cause and it's intent post-invasion. I am hesitant to edit the original document simply because this seems like more information than is necessary and would clutter the document. If anyone disagrees I will add this information and citations. Bellfazar 20:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I was part of TF Bayonet (the 193rd Infantry Brigade and attachments). At about 1700 hours, D Day, we were tasked to facilitate the inaugeration of Endara the next day. A company of the 6th Mech secured the Legislative Palace aound 2300 hours (US forces had not yet cleared that area). Members of TF Bayonet and the USARSO protocol office worked through the early morning hours to prepare the auditorium. Shortly after dawn representatives from Endara's faction arrived and took over preparations. He was formally inaugerated later that afternoon, about 1400 hours, D+1, as I recall. The oath of office was administered by a Panamanian judge, though I do not know who. In attendance were the majority of the Panamanian Legislature - some of Noriega's faction boycotted the event - and the room was full to overflowing. Also present were dozens of members of the Latin American press, and it was well covered in subsequent days' print. The LA Times' reporter did not arrive until a fews day after; the Times's reporting was nortoriously inaccurate as their reporter remained at the Quarry Heights Officer Club for virtually his entire stay and lived off "RUMINT", i.e., rumor based "news".

Outer security at the site was provided by TF Bayonet, internal security at the Palace was performed by Endara's personnel. I was the only uniformed US military person present in the auditorium (standing in the left side doorway); another officer was observing in civilian clothes.

By the way, good catch on the Ranger pictures. The Ranger company was OPCON to TF Bayonet for the final attack on the Commandancia and was one of five companies fighting there. It's been very frustrating seeing those photos so commonly misattributed to a unit that was a few score miles away. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.98.232 (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I think the articles lacks the point of view of panamanians and Noriega's government official positions. --F3rn4nd0 (Roger - Out) 17:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. It's like being concerned about how Hitler felt about WWII. I'm removing the NPOV flag. The article looks good, your action is just a politically biased smear. --76.221.179.3 22:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Damn straight! Only the victors get to have POVs. --67.170.232.146 03:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need for title change

United States invasion of Panama? Why not Operation Just Cause? Some may think the current title is POV. I have not thought about it enough to make a final conclusion. Archtransit 23:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops, already being discussed. See, I thought there was a potential problem even before I knew others were debating it. Archtransit 23:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of suggestions for improving article

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • apparently
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?] done, one was citation, one was 'weasel word'
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Tom ([[User talk:Tpbradbury|talk]]) 14:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Noriega's CIA Role

"For his role in advancing U.S. interests in ***South America****, notably, sabotaging the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and the revolutionaries in El Salvador, Noriega received upwards of $100,000 in pay arranged by CIA Director Bush" This article is so mediocre that whoever wrote this stinker thinks El Salvador, Nicaragua, and the rest are IN SOUTH AMERICA????--200.109.4.6 (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand the inclusion of "South America" interests in the aforementioned quote. Did Noriega have any partake in any role to aid the CIA with respect to any country in South America - excluding the fact that his role in the Colombia drug trade. Retropunk (talk) 09:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Background removal

I removed, "However, eye witness accounts reveal that the U.S. soldiers were provoking the incidents to ignite an international incident and give cause to the invasion. "... American lives were not actually in danger, and instead the United States had to work hard to provoke the crisis that made it appear American lives were in danger." [1]" from the background section. It may make sense in Aftermath or reaction, but was certainly not part of the 4 reasons Bush gave. Superm401 - Talk 10:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No Victory

Someone has written in the results section Descisive american victory, actually, there was no result in the war, it ended in a tie after they've got Noriega, both nations withdrawed and the panamanian idctatorship ended, I'm panamanian and I saw the war, no one was declared winner.

I'm not sure how it can be a tie if the US accomplished its mission. The government was deposed. I do disagree on "decisive victory", though.

The invasion wasn't supposed to be a war against Panama, this is since the Torrijos-Carter treaty doesn't allow Panama to give, deny or help a different side because the US guaranteed the neutrality of Panama and the canal. Since at that time Panama was controlled by Noriega and the fact that he was never democratically elected, the US had to arrest him since he was controlling the canal and was denying services to some countries as well as controlling it "illegaly". The US never declared war against the Panamanian population but against the Government, the mission was to help, not to win and raid off everything. The treaty also gives Panama extra support for the defense of the country. In an brief way, no country or authority can take over Panama or the US would drive them out, they cannot take over Panama as well.

Cocoliras (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It cannot possibly be a tie given the outcome. Considering that the Panamanian casualties dwarfed the US and the operation was completed in under two months, I'd say it was pretty decisive. EvilCouch (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not what you say, it is what sources say, and the invation aims were principally to restore democracy to Panama, not to eradicate the forces. The problem was that, the Panamanian military was in their way and theyhad to move it out to continue, their aim wasn't eliminating the military, but just preventing the dictatorship from going to far away.

As with "Decisive" ... the US isn't god or an invinsible force, a Central American country vanquished great part of the US forces, a military movilization which was the second largest military battlefield since Vietnam. The Panamanian military was a formidable force compared to that of other countries.

In my opinion, the US "barely" survived, the casualties were of civilian people, admit it, a Central American force was enough for the US to movilize the latest military advancements into that battlefield. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.140.233.103 (talk) 03:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, you're neither a historian nor a military analyst and it really doesn't matter what you think regarding the subject. As far as the sources go, I'm having problems finding any that agree with you. There is an overwhelming amount of sources that say that you're dead wrong. I don't know what's with this revisionist history edits here lately, but it's absurd and needs to stop. EvilCouch (talk) 07:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There was no victory because for the US it was a mission, not an armed conflict, and the forces of Panama never fell, Noriega fell Psychologically, not military.

The US ACCOMPLISHED the mission of restoring human rights, it was a mission to help, not to damage, so how could the conflict be won by a force whose first goal was to restore the peace to a country?, they would eliminate the forces on their path but not destroy them completely.

The US final intention was to hunt down Noriega without the less turmoil or social impact, but he was so well hidden that the US had to destroy almost everything, they had no option. They had to destroy everything in order to find him (that and the fact that North Americans are quite exagerated and violent, no offense) after all, the conflict was not a war, but a massive manhunt (article reveals this) and Noriega was just extradited, there's no source that says the US had a victory against Panama.

190.140.233.103 (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

As I see you were a military infantryman of the US Military, so, do you participated or is (was) informed of the outcome of the invasion Evilcouch?.

As long as I know it was an "accomplishment" not a victory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.140.233.103 (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

A victory means the enemy was destroyed, in this case victory doesn't exist since Noriega was arrested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.140.233.103 (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved in the current edit war on how the outcome of should be characterized...
However, given the extensive civil disorder that followed the invasion, maybe "victory" might be too charitable a characterization. Nevertheless, if you can find an official US army historical document (not somebody's thesis or an unpublished paper as is currently cited) that calls it X Y or Z, then that could be a characterization that we could use. Characterization of the outcome of the invasion from the Panamanian's side should at least be taken into consideration to maintain a neutral point of view.--CSTAR (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be left as an accomplishment, since "victory" would mean each other declaring war, and though Panama declared war on the US, the US was to depose a leader, not to kill their forces. The USA accomplished their mission and their goals but that is not victory, it is just bad wording, it would mean the USA "accomplished" their goals and succefully ended their mission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.140.233.103 (talk) 05:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The accuracy of the statement that "Panama declared war on the US" is questionable. The declaration approved by the Panamanian legislature stated that "a state of war exists between Panama and the United States" (paraphrasing) referring to what the Panamanian government claimed where overtly hostile maneuvers by the American military. The declaration has been construed (by many political writers and participants in the events leading up to the invasion, including Noriega) as an observation of fact much like "a state of meteorological devastation exists". Whether this in fact constitutes a declaration of war in any legal sense is highly dubious.--CSTAR (talk) 05:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
In my eyes, "victory" is in military terms and that is hardly arguable. In any case, no one is in a position to characterize a side in this dispute as inserting "vandalism", so let's not go down that road. NSIprogram (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should just forget "victory" to have a neutral POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.218.69.199 (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questioning Panamanian sentiment and the validity of polling

This isn't mainstream scholarship, if it is questioning that the Panamanian people encouraged and supported US intervention. There is no question that the Panamanian people overwhelmingly supported US intervention.[3][4][5][6] It dramatically skews the entry, to pretend that there's anything ambiguous at all about Panamanian support for the overthrow of the dictator. Certainly, after the fact, there were other questions, about the efficiency and sensitivity of US disengagement, and to what extent internal troubles, particularly looting, were the result of faulty US preparation. Also, US responsibility for Noriega's rise in the first place. But these points are distinct from the clear and undeniable and overwhelming support of the Panamanian population for what rightfully-elected president Endara called "liberation rather than invasion".

This seems to be an important point, in the context of contemporary US foreign policy, and one which many political forces active today would love to see misrepresented. I don't mean to question the good faith of the recent addition, only to suggest that the sources that inform it may have ulterior motives which are served by revisionism. This source itself seems to refer to a film rather than a book, the Amazon blurb of which begins "Years before the US went after Saddam Hussein, the White House had Manuel Noriega".

Just wanted to get this out there. Looks like political trickiness to me, to obscure the fact that the US never would have gone in without Panamanian support. DBaba (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Illegal?

Isn't the "illegal invasion of Panama" a bit subjective? —Preceding unsigned comment added by M1470 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Invasion?

American forces were stationed in Panama LONG before the 1980's. We merely reinforced the troops we already had there and moved out of our bases. How do you invade a country you're already in? I may be getting kind of literal, but I feel it's an important distinction to make. I have a book that supports this view: Semper Fi: The Definitive Illustrated History of the U.S. Marines by H. Avery Chenoweth and Brooke Nihart--AtTheAbyss (talk) 12:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right; The US "reinforced" units that were already in country, however, the real question is when did the "Invasion" start? Operation Just Cause kicked off that night, but the US had really started putting troops there as far back as Roosevelt sending in US Marines to "protect" the construction workers building the Canal. Of course this "Security" operation was a "Liberation" operation because Panama wasn't actually a country yet, they were a territory of Colombia which decided to "independently" make a Treaty with the US against their Colombia Governments' wishes. ANYWAY, The course of events that this article defines/explaines is most popularly recognized as the Invasion of Panama, so the name should stick; whether its accurate or not. SFjarhead (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)