>>
>>In Panama: America was set to lose control of the Panama Canal on Jan 1, 1990. To prevent the possible loss of the canal as a commerical and military sea route, the US Invaded (under the guise of protecting the freedom of Panamanians). The US preemptively attacked Panama, to prevent loss of use of the canal. Agree or not?
>>
>
>Evan;
>
>There is no one simple answer but the end result was invasion.
>
>“Operation Just Cause” was the name we gave to the invasion of Panama. To the people of Panama it is referred to as “La Invasión”.
>
>On the morning of December 20, a few hours after the start of the operation, President George H. W. Bush made a short statement listing four reasons for the invasion:
>
>· Safeguarding the lives of U.S. citizens in Panama. In his statement, Bush claimed that Noriega had declared that a state of war existed between the United States and Panama and that he also threatened the lives of the approximately 35,000 Americans living there. There had been numerous clashes between U.S. and Panamanian forces; one American had been killed a few days earlier and several incidents of harassment of Americans had taken place.
>
>· Defending democracy and human rights in Panama. Earlier that year Noriega had nullified presidential elections that had been won by candidates from opposition parties. In addition, a report by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights concluded that numerous human rights violations occurred in Panama during Noriega's government [Report on the situation of human rights in Panama. November 9, 1989].
>
>· Combating drug trafficking. Panama had become a center for drug money laundering and a transit point for drug trafficking to the United States and Europe. Noriega had been singled out for direct involvement in these drug trafficking operations.
>
>· Protecting the integrity of the Torrijos-Carter Treaties. Members of Congress and others in the U.S. political establishment claimed that Noriega threatened the neutrality of the Panama Canal and that the United States had the right under the treaties to intervene militarily to protect the canal.
>
>After all the information I have read about the invasion of Panama, I have the impression that the United States wanted to find an excuse to get rid of Noriega. Norieaga was on the CIA payroll as I recall. The initial reports from the Administration were reminisant of the “Gulf of Tonkin” incident. Blow things out of proportation to justify your action. We are a mighty nation and will not tolerate an insect!
>
>Noriegia seemed like a loose cannon. He played both sides of the drug game and agrovated the United States. It is easy for a fly swatter to squash an insect. Noriegia got squashed.
>
>Was the invasion warranted? Yes and no. A simple hit man (James Bond for example) could have done a better job.
>
>And then China ends up leasing the Panama Canal.
>
Tom,

Thanks for reminding me. I think that there were US citizens involved in Grenada as well.