4 ms·

> They've done a great job in running the canal and the country has noticeably benefited from America's withdrawal. Your comment is missing the part where the

> They've done a great job in running the canal and the country has noticeably benefited from America's withdrawal. Your comment is missing the part where the US military had to go in and take down Noriega. The intervention allowed Guillermo Endara to take power and dissolved the Panamanian Defense Force. Without it, Noriega would certainly still be in power. Under Torrijos–Carter Treaties the US has a right to intervene militarily to protect the canal. This is probably the biggest thing keeping it from becoming a defacto Russian or Chinese port or drug-runner owned port. Look, I'm all for local politics but your post suggests that everything just went fine with the locals, but in reality the port will always be under US protection in one form or another, which helps keep it thriving. Remember locals were outraged and protesting in the streets that the US dare attack their beloved bloodthristy dictator. Dies hards still exist: >Eighteen years after the invasion, Panama's National Assembly unanimously declared 20 December 2007 to be a day of national mourning. Source: wikipedia.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
yequalsx 10y ago
I don't believe my comment is missing anything. I was writing about some nostalgia and how I'm impressed with the efforts of Panama. I never implied or suggested that Panama has no problems. Just that they've done much better than I thought they would. Besides, the U.S. was a major supporter of the PDF before Noriega and at the beginning of his power. We had no qualms dealing with Torrijos or with PDF intervention in national politics. So long as the dictator was still on our side we were fine with it. Lots of civilians died in El Chorillo. It's ok for people to mourn their loss. There were bad and stupid decisions on both sides during those days.
sp4rki 10y ago
Panamanian here. > Without it, Noriega would certainly still be in power. That's debatable. Thankfully the US took care of the situation efficiently, but the general climate was pointing towards a bloody civil war. > Under Torrijos–Carter Treaties the US has a right to intervene militarily to protect the canal. Thankfully in my opinion. Though you could argue that it also makes the Canal a target. > Remember locals were outraged and protesting in the streets that the US dare attack their beloved bloodthirsty dictator. Dies hards still exist This is the only part I truly disagree with. A very small minority actually protested in favor of General Noriega. Pretty much the whole country was on board with removing him from power with the obvious exception of people that followed him to power of their own. Panamanians were not outraged because of the removal of their dictator, but of the methods used to do so that left a bloody trail and piles of dead bodies. December 20 is a national mourning day in recognition of the people that gave their life during such turmoil, not in the name of a power hungry and greedy Noriega. EDIT: The US soldiers where super nice to me as a kid. I even got to drive in a tank and they gave me a shitload of soda.
- curtis 10y ago
  Some useful context can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panamanian_general_election,_1989 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panamanian_general_election,_1.... I've always found it notable that the purpose of the 1989 U.S. invasion of Panama was to remove a dictator and replace him with a democratically elected government.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

yequalsx 10y ago

I don't believe my comment is missing anything. I was writing about some nostalgia and how I'm impressed with the efforts of Panama. I never implied or suggested that Panama has no problems. Just that they've done much better than I thought they would. Besides, the U.S. was a major supporter of the PDF before Noriega and at the beginning of his power. We had no qualms dealing with Torrijos or with PDF intervention in national politics. So long as the dictator was still on our side we were fine with it. Lots of civilians died in El Chorillo. It's ok for people to mourn their loss. There were bad and stupid decisions on both sides during those days.

sp4rki 10y ago

Panamanian here. > Without it, Noriega would certainly still be in power. That's debatable. Thankfully the US took care of the situation efficiently, but the general climate was pointing towards a bloody civil war. > Under Torrijos–Carter Treaties the US has a right to intervene militarily to protect the canal. Thankfully in my opinion. Though you could argue that it also makes the Canal a target. > Remember locals were outraged and protesting in the streets that the US dare attack their beloved bloodthirsty dictator. Dies hards still exist This is the only part I truly disagree with. A very small minority actually protested in favor of General Noriega. Pretty much the whole country was on board with removing him from power with the obvious exception of people that followed him to power of their own. Panamanians were not outraged because of the removal of their dictator, but of the methods used to do so that left a bloody trail and piles of dead bodies. December 20 is a national mourning day in recognition of the people that gave their life during such turmoil, not in the name of a power hungry and greedy Noriega. EDIT: The US soldiers where super nice to me as a kid. I even got to drive in a tank and they gave me a shitload of soda.

curtis 10y ago
Some useful context can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panamanian_general_election,_1989 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panamanian_general_election,_1.... I've always found it notable that the purpose of the 1989 U.S. invasion of Panama was to remove a dictator and replace him with a democratically elected government.