>Let me just add that I was there during Operation Just Cause

Unless you were part of the presidential cabinet of US or Panama that gives you no more inside story into the causes of the war than me.

> and it was anything BUT pre-emptive.

The definition of preemptive is "Undertaken or initiated to deter or prevent an anticipated, usually unpleasant situation or occurrence"

The US was about to lose control of the canal in 1990 to Panama. This would be a major blow to US commerical and US Naval traffic. In order to prevent this bad thing from happening, they attacked Panama to prevent it from happening. To be non preemptive, they would have had to wait until canal was taken over, and the US be banned from using it.

> Study the history more.

An ad hominem attack. Attempting to win an argument by suggesting I'm ignorant, instead of debating my points. This is an invalid form of argument.

> There were many, many justifications for that action not the least which were our responsibilities for the canal, our U.S. military there, and the many citizens in the Canal zone.

Fine, but this has nothing to do with the preemptive nature of the war.