[sp4rki]

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]

Some useful context can be found at 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.