>If I recall Correctly.. Wasn't PANAMA actually "OWNED"(not litteraly of coursE) by the US??? Something like taking one of their man and put it into power?
>
Not really. The Canal Zone was "leased" from Panama as a result of a treaty made back when the canal was built. Back then, Americans weren't quite so upset with the idea of being thought an Imperialist nation. Panama was deemed to be independent (in essence, stolen) from Colombia to secure American control of the canal. If Panama had been the true puppet of the US, it would have been easier to replace him and have the Panamanians try him as a condition for continued support. Similar to what is now happening in Yugoslavia.

For good or bad the US has some huge clubs to wield in the drug wars. For the most part, I have no objection to using those clubs. I have no problem with using the threat of withholding economic aid to force Colombia, Mexico, etc. to recognize and at least make an honest effort to deal with their drug production problems. I think, however, that what happened in Panama goes way over the edge and set a terrible precedent.

>>>
>>>We don't generally get involved in another nations business without permission unless there are extreme human rights violations. I doubt if we have ever forced are way into another country becuase of drugs. Your right however in that we routinely work with other governments to fight the supply of drugs into this country.
>>
>>I have one word to job your memory. PANAMA. The United States used its military to kidnap (insert your particular verb if you don't like that one) the duly recognized head of state of a sovereign nation. He was brought here, tried, convicted, and (to the best of my recollection) imprisoned for violating American drug laws.