Talk:United States invasion of Panama/Archive 1

Explanation for invasion
'tension' is not an acceptable explanation for the military invasion of another country.

-199.245.163.1

America invaded Panama to secure access to the canal until handover in 1999. Noreiga was by 1989 a very unstable leader and despite American/CIA backing for years they removed him and put in place politicians would do America's bidding in relation to the canal.

Holden 27


 * It seems this information is indeed not very well covered on this article. Could you do us all a favour and, after researching the subject, adding the required background here? JFW | T@lk  00:49, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it needs to be explained. Basically, the invasion was decided after the government of Noriega declared a state of war with the United States. When such thing happen, would you rather wait to be attacked or take the initiative? The U.S. opted to take the initiative. Why did Noriega declared a state of war in the first place is a different question. =)   &mdash;Joseph | Talk 02:22, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

Here is the background information:  &mdash;Joseph | Talk 02:35, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well that is certainly one point of view, but there are others (e.g. the various Chomsky references, and others in the article) What you are saying is the reason the United States claimed the invasion was carried out. Whether that was the proximate cause is clearly a matter of opinion since there are competing reasons. So please, if you make a change, you must cleary state that the reason you stated is the reason the US military alleged. Anything else is POV.CSTAR 03:41, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Uh, sorry to burst your bubble, but Noam Chomsky is a leftist crackpot known for making wild allegations against every major American military action of the post Vietnam era. His "opinion" (always unsupported by any type of hard evidence other than his own bloviating) is only that, and cannot be used to form the basis of any NPOV article.**


 * In the above comment, I did not say Chomsky's comments should be the basis of the article; I said there were many opinions about the reasons for the invasion. Moreover, if you compare with opinions of many Latin Americans, his opinions are moderate. Again that doesn't make the opinion right or wrong. You are right that his opinion alone should not determine what is said in the article and it hardly does.  Thanks for commenting!--CSTAR 15:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * As a matter of fact there were at least 4 reasons given by G. W, H. Bush to invade Panama. (New York Times, Dec 21, 1989 A Transcript of Bush's Address on the Decision to Use Force in Panama) I will give explicit references to other New York Times articles for relevant information. Also a little more on the international background to the invasion is needed who supported it, who opposed it etc.  But keep in mind that this article cannot be written from the perspective of the GWH Bush administration. CSTAR 04:15, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * RE: Keep in mind that this article cannot be written from the perspective of the GWH Bush administration.


 * Yes it can, it it has.

I noticed that the American article about the invasion merely shows up the opinion of the US government at that time and there is no critical discussion whatsoever. Interestingly the articles in other languages (I checked 5 other languages) don't share the same opinion. In particular they take into account the economic interests of the US as reason to invade. - obviously as government you can't indicate that as reason and have to "arrange" for some other reason.
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.162.109.208 (talk) 05:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Need Some Info
I'm not entirely savvy on the details of Op Just Cause, but I heard a rumor the other day that I can't totally corroborate, hopefully you all can help. I know we dropped A LOT of troops on Panama that evening, but someone told me that one particular chaulk of paratroopers got stuck in a mud flat (read: sitting ducks). I know this may have happened at LZ OCELOT, but the rumor mentioned something about bad intelligence about canal levels, and the ANG and Army intelligence units not talking to one another. Does anyone have some usable info on the matter? Teejay769 15:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)TeeJay769

Spanish reporter
A Spanish reporter was killed by US troops. Is it worthy of mention?


 * Since lots of non-combatants were killed in the invasion, (My best estimate is around 1000) you would need to explain why this is worth mentioning. CSTAR 17:01, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From Panamanian point of view (opinion)
There is a report on Operation Just Cause covered i believe by CNN news during that time period. It is about an hour long and shows what truly happened in Panama from Panamanian reporters and why so many innocent lives were taken at the risk of capturing Noriega. In my personal opinion, i think there is more to the invasion than George Bush Sr., led the American media to believe. The Panamanian Defense Force itself turned their back on Noriega before the invasion and agreed to hand him over to the U.S. The U.S. refused to take him and instead invaded Panama later. i think they used Noriega as an excuse to invade Panamanian territory and gain possesion and military control of the canal thus ridding Panama of their own military forces. Their "Argument" was that the Panamanian military could not confidently control the canal and secure its safety.


 * If you can document and state this in a way in which it is clear who is making the claim, then by all means include it.--CSTAR 13:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * There is something very insatisfactory about this article, which is not factual innacuracy, but rather the absence of any credible point of view on the Panamanian side, particularly in the first section after the TOC.--CSTAR 02:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Am I misunderstanding? I was under the impression that Nifty Package was a success and we got Noriega that night.  As I understand, he's still in prison in Miami, scheduled to be released in 2007.  Is this false?  And I think from the research I have done this morning that it wasn't the PDF that engaged US forces at the airport, but Third-Country Body guards. Teejay769 16:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Teejay769

Nifty Package? WTF?
I read the following and thought, this just can't be right: "Just Cause was planned under the name Blue Spoon, and the invasion itself incorporated elements of the Operation Nifty Package and Operation Acid Gambit plans." I've heard it was called blue spoon before, but "nifty package"? "Acid gambit"?? I googled for these terms and all links to nifty package send me back to a wikipedia site. Acid gambit, however, is real, according to this and other such pages. So what's the deal with "nifty package" - can anyone confirm this? Also shouldn't there be a section on the press and the invasion? It seems to me the panama invasion was a turning point (to a lesser extent than grenada) in press restrictions during wartime.--csloat 8 July 2005 22:57 (UTC)

Confirmed From a Journal of Counterterrorism (2000) article: "The plan, designated Operation Acid Gambit, was simple, at least in theory. Aviation support would be provided by MH-6 "Little Birds" from the 160th Special Operations Aviation Group. This agile, unarmed helicopter, a relative of the OH-6 observation helicopter used in Vietnam, was specially outfitted with outboard "benches" designed to ferry up to three commandos on each side. Painted black to facilitate nighttime operations, the small aircraft could conduct rapid insertions and extractions of special operations forces into areas its larger brother, the MH-60 Black Hawk, could not. This same assault package combined with MH-60s's from the 160th, would also be tasked with the apprehension of Manual Noriega himself, in an operation code named 'Nifty Package'." lots of issues | leave me a message 07:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is a sad story that took place at the old Puenta Patea Airport (now a shopping mall):
 * NIFTY PACKAGE (U.S. 89) A special operation conducted in the opening hours of the American invasion of Panama (JUST CAUSE) to capture, kill or prevent the escape of the Panamanian strongman Manuel Noriega. Based on the GABEL ADDER plan, this operation included a team of elite Navy Seals who destroyed the dictator’s private jet on the ground, but suffered four dead.

A SEAL got the jet with an AT-4 (or maybe a LAW) rocekt, but the team was pretty well wiped out by the 'foreign' body guards. A bad day. Paul, in Saudi 12:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Operation Acid Gambit was an operation conducted by Delta Force operators with Night Stalkers and US Air Force assistance (in the form of an MH-6 and AC-130 gunship, respectively). The operation conducted was the rescue of a U.S. citizen Kurt Muse from a prison controlled by Noriega (Muse had been making radio broadcasts against Noriega). The operation lasted six minutes with a single casualty--one Delta operator was injured while loading onto the MH-6.--SOCL 16:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Would you please put that in the article itself (not just a reference?)--CSTAR 16:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I will get to it on Thursday (my weekend). Of course the real story of Muse is more exciting.

ACID GAMBIT (U.S. 89) A plan to rescue Central Intelligence Agency operative Kurt Muse from a Panamanian prison in which he was held in 1989. Muse had been arrested while attempting to set up a covert anti-Noriega radio station in Panama City. Political considerations delayed the raid by the elite “Delta Force” until the United States invaded Panama to topple the local dictator (JUST CAUSE). The rescue went smoothly, and was carried out more quickly than any of the elaborate rehearsals. The helicopter flying Muse out crashed shortly after leaving the Comandancia. Another aircraft had to rescue him from the crash.

GWB (former CIA chief) was vey eager to get KM out of there. Guys at SOUTHCOM were walking the White House through the op live as it happened. The crash of the helicopter onto the tidal mud flats was the trick ending. Paul, in Saudi 18:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I like to think that when Bush was asked for the reason he invaded Panama he said "Just 'cause".

Casualties??
someone edited civilian casualties to 500-4.000? whats the source? this is news to me. I've seen a lot of information on the operation, but I've never heard of this number. --James Bond 06:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a range depending on the source, some of which are listed in the article. --CSTAR 06:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Casualties??
Why does the US side of the box list people that were wounded, while the panama side only lists people that were killed? Ojw 19:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I added the casualties figures to the box. I didnt list a Panamanian wounded number simply because I could not find one. --James Bond 11:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Ramsey Clark has a NPOV?!?
Could we find a more NPOV independent study than one done by Ramsey Clark. --BohicaTwentyTwo 19:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Concerns
I have some NPOV concerns about this whole article, but particularly the section called "International reaction." The last three paragraphs are devoted to expressing doubts about the U.S. motivations and fears about ulterior motives. First, these are all unsourced. Phrases like "widely viewed," "perceived throughout Latin America," "considered to be", and "generally believed" raise red flags. If these reactions occurred, then cite a source or attribute them to somebody. Otherwise, they're just unsubstantiated opinion.

I think the last paragraph is particuarly egregious, because it concludes "these fears had some credibility." In fact, the things that were reportedly feared to be the real motivations for the invasion did not ultimately happen The U.S. did not restablish military bases (or increase it's military presence), they did not overturn the treaties ceding control of the canal, and democracy was restored after Noriega's ouster.

Contrast this section with the first one, "Reasons for invasion." The structure is to present President Bush's statement, followed by criticism that essentially dismisses his rationale. Is that really NPOV? There's an imbalance between these two sections.

I'm not opposed to including critcism of the U.S., in fact I believe strongly that it should be included. But this reads too much like one person's opinion. It's not encylopedic at all.

Anson2995 16:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point. I suggest you place the marker (which looks like )after the relevant paragraphs to note that references are needed. I really don't see that there is much doubt about these facts in general terms, however. So some references to support (possibly weakened) versions of these assertions shouldn't be too hard to find.--CSTAR 16:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, CSTAR. I've gone ahead and done that. Please note that I'm, not arguing that these criticisms didn't exist or even necessarily asking for citations to back them up.  I'm primarily saying that this section is very poorly written.
 * For example: "It is generally believed that during that time the United States did little to curtail his involvement in drug trafficking." Generally believed by whom?  Was this belief based on anything substantive or was it just idle gossip? Were the beliefs borne out by any evidence?  A better sentence might be something like "Noriega had been on the CIA payroll since 1967, despite evidence that he was deeply involved in drug trafficking. The U.S. indicted him on federal drug charges in 1988."  Citation or not, that's a presentation of fact rather than of opinion.
 * And again, I don't think it's NPOV to document criticism of the U.S. motivation without also documenting whether or not those criticisms turned out to be fair. There's too much in this article about why the operation took place and too little about the results.  Did the U.S. inrease its military presence? Was democracy restored?  Were the treaties protected?  Was drug trafficking combated?  Without that sort of information, this article seems to me to be nothing more than a criticism of the U.S. action.  There's very little in here that's critical of Noriega or the PDF, criticism that would tend to support the views of President Bush.  There's no mention of the human rights abuses, the rigged election, or the murder of opposition leaders, all of which are an important part of understanding the U.S. motivations.  If the anti-Noriega view can't be presented here, then the anti-U.S. view shouldn't be presented either Anson2995 18:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Re: There's no mention of the human rights abuses, the rigged election, or the murder of opposition leaders, all of which are an important part of understanding the U.S. motivations. If the anti-Noriega view can't be presented here, then the anti-U.S. view shouldn't be presented either 
 * I don't think that claim about the article is true: the human right abuses and the rigged election are both mentioned. Moreover, there is a lot of information about the murder of opposition leaders in other WP articles which are linked to this one.  As far as balance, the justification given by Bush is there in the article without any commentary.  What else do you think is necessary?
 * Re: "It is generally believed that during that time the United States did little to curtail his involvement in drug trafficking." " I agree, I think your formulation is better.
 * Re Was democracy restored?. The article does mention that elections have taken place regularly since then and that Panama has a free press (or some such thing).
 * On balance, I think that that modulo the need for citations and the sentence you reformulated, the article is fair. --CSTAR 19:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not neutral to enumerate the official reasons given by the US exclusively under "reasons for the attack". The widely criticized invasion that arguably broke the UN Charter is suspected internationally to have had very different reasons, as implicated in the international reactions section. Añoranza 16:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Only the attacking country can say why it did that. Its not POV to state their reasons in its own section. Normally an article like this would have a seperate criticism section, however this one is called international reactions apparently even though they are all negative and criticism. --zero faults undefined  16:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not neutral to reproduce propaganda under a neutral title that prominently and ban criticism to the end of the article. We do not have a large official Nazi section on the justification of the holocaust either. Añoranza 16:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The reasons cited by the government is not propaganda. Its the reasons as cited by the government. Perhaps we should remove all mention of the US reason, and any criticism of the war as well to balance it out, however as you know: NPOV:Undue Weight does not allow only criticism to be posted. --zero faults undefined  16:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please inform yourself about what propaganda means. Of course it would be equally biased only to represent the criticism, both parts are needed but neutrally represented. Añoranza 17:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should expand the international reaction section then? Also the holocaust was not a war, in case you are confused about that. --zero faults undefined  17:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The complaint was not that the international reactions section is too small but that the US stated reasons are positioned prominently directly after the intro. Propaganda names can be used whether a war or not, your comment is off-topic. Añoranza 01:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I already addressed that issue. If you feel placement is the problem, which is now a new reason, then move the Internation Reaction below it ... --zero faults undefined  01:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda title
As "Operation Just Cause" is obviously a propaganda term and analyzed as such in the article itself it is inappropriate as the title for an article that is about what happened and not about the propaganda term itself. Añoranza 15:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Is this a request for opinions or simply a warning. Can I see the policy stating your above comments? Perhaps "Being Bold" should also take into consideration other people. --zero faults undefined  16:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is so obvious that I do not request other opinions, and for wikipedia policy just take a look at NPOV. Añoranza 17:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Añoranza, you have made your edits under the claim of removing the POV of this article; the title may indeed be determined to POV. However, by dismissing these titles as "POV" and "propaganda" without discussion seems awfully ironic.  Let's determine a consensus. --tomf688 (talk - email) 19:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The article itself explains why the title is propaganda. Protecting the article under that title without placing an NPOV tag is obscene. Añoranza 22:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not adverse to renaming the article, provided there is consensus for it. The alternate name should be specific enough to distinguish this operation from others, something like "1989 United States invasion of Panama". Moreover, it should be stated that "Just Cause" was the operational name adopted by the US military (specifically avoid use of the word propaganda in the section heading). It currently says that the name is hardly used outside official US circles (e.g. military, state department). --CSTAR 23:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Operational names are chosen for propaganda purposes, and this is a very obvious example. The repeated argumentation "it is official, thus no propaganda" disturbs me. Is it really that easy to pull the wool over wikipedians' eyes? Would you write the same if it was an "official" Nazi term? Añoranza 23:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a wide swath of territory that is covered by the term "propaganda." Public relations is arguably propaganda, advertising is propaganda (as you undoubtedly know in spanish these two terms are virtually indistinguishable) but in the english wikipedia it is generally preferred to distinguish them. I don't think we are pulling wool over anybody's eyes. I for one would be very sceptical of an encyclopedia which uses the word propaganda too much. Wikipedia may not be worth much, but by using "propaganda" as you suggest, it would have even less value.--CSTAR 23:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * A miltary invasion of a foreign country named "just cause", what could be more propaganda? Añoranza 00:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Operation names are what they are. Removing all of them from Wikipedia is removing valuable content. --zero faults undefined  00:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As you know very well, I never wanted any operation names to be completely removed. I do not want "final solution of the Jewish question" removed either. It is just inappropriate to refer to conflicts with the name given to them just by one party. As this article is about the Panama invasion and most articles that link here refer to the invasion, too, using the name of one party's military is inappropriate. Añoranza 00:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * We use Holocaust do we not? We use Cold War do we not? If you want to prove your sincerity how about you wage a war against the term Cold War as it was created by a US politician. The truth is its not about propaganda terms or operations terms, its about the military, such as can be seen by your edits in Iraq War. I would be tempted to believe you if you had not gone on a spree attempting to remove certain terms from Wikipedia entirely and even without merit for other peoples work or the inconsistencies you were creating or redundant statements. --zero faults undefined  00:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You were refuted a zillion times about your cold war analogy, but as you seem to like it so much I tell you again: cold war is not biased as it does not favor any side. Añoranza 01:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Its not biased to hide the fact that numerous nations were invaded and wars took place on their soil? --zero faults undefined  01:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please check what bias means. "Just cause" clearly favors the US government view of the conflict while Cold war does not favor any side. Añoranza 01:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * My involvement in this conversation is done. If you feel the article needs to be renamed start a poll and garner concensus, make sure you follow Straw_polls when creating it. Thank you. --<font color="Red">zero faults <font color="Blue">undefined  01:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Without commenting directly on which title this article should have (that's a question that should be strongly influenced by which term is predominantly used in outside sources when discussing this topic), I'd like to address your question about "official Nazi terms": yes, we really would. See, for example, Operation Barbarossa, Operation Blue, Operation Edelweiss. (Same thing for Soviet terms, if anyone is wondering: Operation Bagration, Operation Uranus, etc.)
 * All operation names are, by definition, chosen only by one side; for this reason, we prefer not to use them unless they are the most common way to refer to the even in question. Where this is the case, however, we do not shy away from using them. Kirill Lokshin 01:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The external links support the term Operation Just Cause. BBC calls it that, even Noam Chomsky calls it that, if you know of Chomsky you would know why thats significant. Just look at the sources, it says enough, this users claim that only military professionals are familiar with it is ludacris and unfounded. --<font color="Red">zero faults <font color="Blue">undefined  01:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Meh, online sources tend not to be the most reliable in such cases. I don't necessarily dispute your point, though; just for comparison, a sampling of other references
 * Phillips & Axelrod, Encyclopedia of Wars → "United States Invasion of Panama (Operation Just Cause)"
 * Donnelly, Operation Just Cause: The Storming of Panama → obvious
 * McConnell, Just Cause: The Real Story of America's High-Tech Invasion of Panama → also obvious
 * It would probably be useful to do a more thorough literature survey to see what title other sources—particularly other encyclopedias—use. Kirill Lokshin 01:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't like the title much myself -- something like "United States invasion of Panama in 1989" would be more neutral and straightforward. Unlike Operation Barbarossa or Edelweiss or Uranus, "Just Cause" is a name which inevitably is meant to have POV implications (in the same way, Operation Iraqi Freedom is not the title of the article we use for the on-going situation). However of course the MOS says we should use the title which would be best known in English, though I'm not sure how that interacts with our policies on NPOV (I suspect NPOV will always trump).
 * I did a JSTOR search for "Operation Just Cause" and got almost no articles with that in the title -- most had titles like "The Validity of United States Intervention in Panama under International Law", "The World before and after the 1989 Invasion of Panama ", and "The Panama Invasion Revisited: Lessons for the Use of Force in the Post Cold War Era". I'm just putting that out there. --Fastfission 02:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If we were to switch it to the other title, could we leave off "in 1989"? Are there other U.S. invasions of Panama that have (or could have) articles? Kirill Lokshin 02:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Encyclopedia Britannica uses "Invasion of Panama". It doesn't even contain the operation name. Just as a note. A google search for "invasion of Panama" gets slightly more results than "Operation Just Cause". And apparently even Noam Chomsky doesn't always use the military codeword. ;-) I'm happy with leaving off the 1989, sure. In my head I think I was getting the U.S. intervention in Panama's revolution confused with an invasion originally. --Fastfission 02:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to change the name -- I included 1989, because arguably US military interventions in Panama have a long history, but I'm not insistent on that either. We just need to agree on a name. I do object to refering the operation name as chosen for "propaganda" reasons, prefering instead the current phrasing "public relations" reasons. I also object to changing the order of sections. Perhaps rename "Reasons for .." to "Background" and make it clear that the reasons given first are simply the US administration's account of events. If there is consensus, I will do these changes myself.--CSTAR 03:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * PS. At least one of the photographs, while of interest from the point of view of US military history, I think is decidedly non-neutral. Again, I have no objection to pictures, and won't press this point, but this is arguably POV and may lead to objections in the future. --CSTAR 03:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Vote

 * Well, Fastfission's research suggests that "Invasion of Panama" is the more commonly used form, so I have no objections to moving this to any of:
 * Invasion of Panama
 * Invasion of Panama (1989)
 * United States invasion of Panama
 * United States invasion of Panama (1989)
 * Operation Just Cause
 * depending on taste and need to disambiguate. I would think that either of the first two would be better, since they avoid the grammatical mess of using "United States" as an adjective. Kirill Lokshin 03:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I propose (2) (i.e. Invasion of Panama (1989)). Is there a consensus for this? I agree that using the operational name adopted by the DoD seems a bit "provincial".--CSTAR 15:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I support #1; how many times has Panama been invaded? Does it really need a descriptive title? --tomf688 (talk - email) 15:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Incursions by the US military into Panama have occurred in various instances in the last century. I'm not sure I would call these invasions, but some latin-american historians have indeed done so.--CSTAR 15:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it should stay as Operation Just Cause. I have not seen a wikipedia policy on Operation names not being useable. Considering most of the sources that can be checked also call it Operation Just Cause it makes little sense to call it something noone else is calling it.--<font color="Red">zero faults <font color="Blue">undefined  17:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with Invasion of Panama, or Invasion of Panama (1989). The latter being more descriptive if we have more then one such invasion. -- <font color="Red">zero faults <font color="Blue">' '' 13:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be Invasion of Panama or United States Invasion of Panama. Which really does not matter since the other should be a redirect. Operation Just Cause should be a redirect. I don't think we need to have (1989) in the title until there is a need to disambiguate. At the moment there is no need to do this. The main thing is that people searching should find what they are after. When I search for Invasion of Panama and see an article headed 'Operation Just Cause' I immediately think 'why is there a POV piece of propaganda here'. I don't think 'POV alert' if I do the opposite. --Gorgonzilla 15:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Protected
I\'ve temporarily protected this page because it smells like an edit war is brewing. Please discuss these changes and determine consensus, and I or another admin will unprotect it. Thanks. --tomf688 (talk - email) 19:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Could we agree to return it to a prior state (say this one ) and work from there? --CSTAR 19:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That\'s a fair enough request. --tomf688 (talk - email) 19:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As the title is obviously propaganda I urge you to put an NPOV tag and insist that it should have been done right away \'\'before\'\' the protection. Furthermore, picking an old version for protection is against wikipedia rules. If you do not undo this immediately I file a complaint. Añoranza 22:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Its the name of a military operation name. I dont see you changing any that are not related to the US. I do not see you challenging the basis for an article on the Holocaust which itself means \"sacrificial offering to God\". You are not attempting to change all mentions of Holocaust to \"WW2 Situation involving certain groups.\" Its your need to change every operation name only when it involves the US, this after a debate where it was proven that operation names were used on Wikipedia when you insisted War on Terrorism should be renamed and not associated with the war itself. Its as POV as Cold War another term made by US politicians to describe a series of political and military situations, it is also a term you should challenge as people in Korea would not agree with the term since it was not \"cold\" when bombs were dropping. --<font color=\"Red\">\'\'\'zero faults\'\'\' \'\'<font color=\"Blue\">undefined \'\' 22:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * How many readers will associate the US invasion of Panama with the name \"Operation Just Cause\"? Naming convention is to use the most widely used, most understandable and most neutral name. A propaganda name that most people will not even understand does not meet any of these criteria. If you find any articles with inappropriate Nazi propaganda titles you are welcome to change them. I stumbled over this because an officer accused of war crimes in Iraq had the name in his article. Making unfounded accusations does not shed a good light on the reasons you have here. Añoranza 22:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Aparently all of the editors who created the articles you reverted as well as all the readers who left it and never changed it, they all seem to understand and associate it, also all the books and articles mentioned as sources that also mention it. Do you read the articles you are editing? It seems not if that is your arguement. --<font color=\"Red\">\'\'\'zero faults\'\'\' \'\'<font color=\"Blue\">undefined \'\' 00:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That is just ridiculous. As the current article title is \"operation blabla\", editors who refer to the invasion avoided redirects by using it. Furthermore, most articles linking here are about the military and heavily influenced by military personnel, this in no way reflects whether the average wikipedian knows the propaganda term. And even if everyone knew it, it is still not neutral. Añoranza 00:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Assumptions. --<font color=\"Red\">\'\'\'zero faults\'\'\' \'\'<font color=\"Blue\">undefined \'\' 00:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * \"Not neutral\" is not an assumption, it is a plain fact. Añoranza 00:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Your treading water. In one location you are stating you are changing these names cause propaganda, in the other you are stating its cause of a redirect, get your story straight. --<font color=\"Red\">\'\'\'zero faults\'\'\' \'\'<font color=\"Blue\">undefined \'\' 01:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I countered your complaint about \"operation iraqi freedom\" with the fact that it is not even the article title and thus changing the link to a neutral term in no way shows bias. I removed \"just cause\" just because it is a propaganda term. Añoranza 01:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Deny all you want, I am done arguing with you, your varied intentions has been documented. I am no longer participating in this discussion with you. If you want, feel free to initiate a poll, but remember straw polls have to have their questions agreed on by the community. --<font color=\"Red\">\'\'\'zero faults\'\'\' \'\'<font color=\"Blue\">undefined \'\' 01:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not deny anything. I will wait with any further action until the protecting admin returns to undo the picking of his preferred version. Añoranza 01:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Now you are accusing the admin of favoring a side? Where does it end. --<font color=\"Red\">\'\'\'zero faults\'\'\' \'\'<font color=\"Blue\">undefined \'\' 01:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I\'m not picking my preferred version. I\'m picking the version that existed prior to your edits. There is a difference. --tomf688 (talk - email) 01:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I support Añoranza and the fight against Imperialist propaganda. ~!70.87.34.82 Stroke out comment by blocked vandal who posted "in my name" in order to throw mud on me. Añoranza 10:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

'''Please respect etiquette and assume good faith. Also be nice and remain civil.''' --James Bond 08:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed name change
Based on the above discussions and the structure of a similar article for the Invasion of Grenada I propose the following:


 * 1) Rename the article to Invasion of Panama
 * 2) Rewrite the introduction as follows
 * The invasion of Panama, known by the U. S. Military as Operation Just Cause, was an invasion of Panama that deposed general and de facto military leader Manuel Noriega in December 1989, during the administration of U.S. President George H. W. Bush.
 * --CSTAR 15:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess we should rename operations such as Operation Desert Fox 1998 Bombing of Iraq as so on, this might get tricky with operations such as Operation Red Dawn. What would you call that?. --James Bond 03:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not big on quibbling about names (although I have to agree that the current name reflects PsyOps) but why do you suggest that these other name changes would be necessary--CSTAR 02:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The current name is hopelessly unencyclopedic and POV. A name chosen for propaganda purposes by one beligerent in a conflict is only acceptable if it is the generally accepted name. But even then few people would refer to the D-Day landings as Operation Overlord or Broadside and if they did they would be refering to the specific battle plans. The only case where it is going to be the case is for articles such as Operation Ajax which are clandestine activities that fall short of an invasion and are not exactly a coup. What we have here is clearly what the article itself admits: Operation Just Cause was the U.S. military invasion of Panama. In the Panama text books this is going to be called the U.S. invasion. The above looks right to me. I would suggest putting in a redirect from Operation Just Cause. Besides which remembering all these Orwellian titles gets tiresome after a while. --Gorgonzilla 18:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to point out this is an english centric encyclopedia, what they put in the spanish centric text book is not a measure for what we put in this encyclopedia. However its been noted what is in a particular encyclopedia. As to the general acceptance of the name, the sources listed state the Operation by name more then half of the time for the weblinks, the books themselves would be even more concise. The date and time at which you entered this conversation has been noted. --<font color="Red">zero faults <font color="Blue">undefined  01:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The term used in the English press is the US invasion of Panama. Nobody in England would use the term Operation Just Cause without explanation and the same goes for the New York Times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorgonzilla (talk • contribs)
 * Can you post some evidence in favor of this, article clippings etc. -- <font color="Red">zero faults <font color="Blue">' '' 13:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Rename to US invasion of Panama as using a propaganda name invented by one side violates neutrality. As after one week we have a 4-1 majority for the name change it should be done. Añoranza 10:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If there is support for US invasion of Panama (which is fine by me) I think it should be called United States Invasion of Panama.
 * Re: using a propaganda name invented by one side violates neutrality. Well, it's an unfortunate fact of life that many names do serve as somebody's propaganda. However, I don't think it violates NPOV, provided it is made clear that such names are determined by Psy-Ops. But I agree, Invasion of Panama (or U.S. invasion of Panama) is better.--CSTAR 14:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually most people are saying to just call it Invasion of Panama, which I also agree with. Welcome back. -- <font color="Red">zero faults <font color="Blue">' '' 11:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Very glad to see this change. Using a military operation name for an article like this should automatically be given a second thought and POV check. --Dhartung | Talk 03:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Enclyclopedia Britannica uses "Invasion of Panama" Archtransit 23:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Just for fun, now after the fact... a ProQuest search of the New York Times yields: 31 documents containing "Operation Just Cause" (many of them using it in a critical way — my favorites are editorials called "Operation High Hokum" and "Operation Just Begun") out of a total set of 822 which contain the keywords "invasion" and "panama" from 1989 onwards. "Invasion of Panama" gets 386 hits as a phrase (again, from 1989 to the present). --Fastfission 05:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

What do people in Panama call it? And no jokes! Archtransit 23:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * How many times has Panama been invaded? If the answer is only in 1989, then the title should be 'Invasion of Panama' IMHO.--James Bond 20:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * But the invader was USA and it is a critical detail. Also, "Decisive U.S. victory, deposition of Noriega's dictatorship, restoration of democracy in Panama by the U.S., abolition of the Military of Panama." what is this? I guess there are supporters of USA's recent war in Iraq here. You know, "defeating a dictator, restoring democracy" is the traditional reason for US governments to invade other sovereign nations throughout the history. Deliogul (talk) 08:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Zer0faults
For those interested, an RfC has been filed regarding User:Zer0faults at Requests for comment/Zer0faults. Any comments would be appreciated. -- Mr. Tibbs 20:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Noriega and CIA
To be honest I had just copied that from out biography about him. I googled and found this [http://www.mit.edu:8001/activities/thistle/v9/9.07/2CIA.html As far back as 1959, he was reporting on Panamanian leftists to the Americans. By 1966, he was on the CIA payroll.] I will ask at Manuel Noriega. Añoranza 01:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Just Cause my ...
I concur, it should be renamed to the neutral title: Nth Invasion of Panamá by the US. I´m sure it´s not the first time. Remember Panama Reds.

Photo captions
I recieved this from a Ranger buddy of mine:
 * I did a seach in Wikipedia for: Operation Just Cause.On the resulting page there are a total of three pictures with captions. The very 1st one I am not sure of the unit shown.  The other two pictures are TOTALLY wrongly captioned!  The first one states: "U.S. Army 7th Infantry Division (light) soldiers prepare to take La Comandancia in the El Chorrillo neighborhood of Panama City, December 1989."  I was in the building(Gymnasium) accross the street waiting for the target to get 'prepped' by Apache rockets.  Then I made the demo charge to blow the gates and C Co cleared that building.  The tree RANGERS shown were mostly 203 gunners from the various C Co squads.


 * The third picture is shown with the following caption: "Elements of the 7th Infantry Division (light) secure La Comandancia in Panama during Operation Just Cause, December 1989." I can identify 3 of the four soliders shown by name, and they are all from 2nd Plt C Co 3/75th Rgr Rgt.

Additionally, I found that the photos themselves were entitled and captioned as photos of Rangers by their uploaders. Consequently, I have changed the photo captions. EvilCouch 09:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Any soldiers with "mop-tops" on their halmets in Panama were from the 7th ID, the only unit that makes all its soldiers wear "mop-tops". L0b0t 10:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Negative. Rangers were also wearing "mop-tops" during that time-period. See this link for photos from Batt-boys wearing them. EvilCouch 16:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits
Edits by User:truth2244 have introduced claims with no hard references: for example,
 * According to a Washington Post report, c. 1989, 

is not acceptable as a citation. Moreover, that entire paragraph as it currently stands is WP:OR, since the relation of the facts there asserted, to the events of the article needs itself a source. In addition, the claim that the Chorillo neighborhood was destroyed to retaliate against Noriega supporters is a dubious interpretation of the documentary.

Pleas note that I have absolutely no objection (nor should anybody!) for insertion of material pro or con, favorable or unfavorable to the US role, provided citations are provided. --CSTAR 03:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed the bit about looting and the Iraq War. Not really relevant to the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Post Invasion Government
There is conflicting information regarding the creation of the Panamanian government post invasion. The Los Angeles times article allegedly says that Endara was sworn in at Rodman Naval Base without any other information.

A report prepared for the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1995 says that Endara was sworn in at Quarry Heights (USSOUTHCOM's headquarters) after speaking to General Thurman and U.S. Deputy Chief of Mission in Panama, John Bushnell about Operation Just Cause and it's intent post-invasion. I am hesitant to edit the original document simply because this seems like more information than is necessary and would clutter the document. If anyone disagrees I will add this information and citations. Bellfazar 20:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

-- I was part of TF Bayonet (the 193rd Infantry Brigade and attachments). At about 1700 hours, D Day, we were tasked to facilitate the inaugeration of Endara the next day. A company of the 6th Mech secured the Legislative Palace aound 2300 hours (US forces had not yet cleared that area). Members of TF Bayonet and the USARSO protocol office worked through the early morning hours to prepare the auditorium. Shortly after dawn representatives from Endara's faction arrived and took over preparations. He was formally inaugerated later that afternoon, about 1400 hours, D+1, as I recall. The oath of office was administered by a Panamanian judge, though I do not know who. In attendance were the majority of the Panamanian Legislature - some of Noriega's faction boycotted the event - and the room was full to overflowing. Also present were dozens of members of the Latin American press, and it was well covered in subsequent days' print. The LA Times' reporter did not arrive until a fews day after; the Times's reporting was nortoriously inaccurate as their reporter remained at the Quarry Heights Officer Club for virtually his entire stay and lived off "RUMINT", i.e., rumor based "news".

Outer security at the site was provided by TF Bayonet, internal security at the Palace was performed by Endara's personnel. I was the only uniformed US military person present in the auditorium (standing in the left side doorway); another officer was observing in civilian clothes.

By the way, good catch on the Ranger pictures. The Ranger company was OPCON to TF Bayonet for the final attack on the Commandancia and was one of five companies fighting there. It's been very frustrating seeing those photos so commonly misattributed to a unit that was a few score miles away. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.98.232 (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
I think the articles lacks the point of view of panamanians and Noriega's government official positions. --<font color="#6495ed"> <font color="#3cb371">F3rn4nd0 (Roger - Out) 17:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. It's like being concerned about how Hitler felt about WWII. I'm removing the NPOV flag. The article looks good, your action is just a politically biased smear. --76.221.179.3 22:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Damn straight! Only the victors get to have POVs. --67.170.232.146 03:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Need for title change
United States invasion of Panama? Why not Operation Just Cause? Some may think the current title is POV. I have not thought about it enough to make a final conclusion. Archtransit 23:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, already being discussed. See, I thought there was a potential problem even before I knew others were debating it. Archtransit 23:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

List of suggestions for improving article
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Tom (talk) 14:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.[?]
 * Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Guide to layout.[?]
 * There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
 * apparently
 * might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?] done, one was citation, one was 'weasel word'
 * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “<font color='red'> All pigs are pink, so we thought of <font color='red'> a number of ways to turn them green.”
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

Removed unsupported text
I have removed this section of the article because the sole citation provided no support, but is rather just a cite to an article that reviews a video critical of the invasion. Such a tertiary source is inappropriate in any event, but especially when it doesn't actually provide support for the text:

, and in 1991, the U.S. created a law to reopen the Torrijos-Carter Treaties to allow the U.S. military to become the sole power enforcing the neutrality and providing security for the canal. These events lead some to theorize that the underlying motive of the invasion was to further U.S. interests by maintaining a hold on the canal after the turnover on December 31, 1999.

Jkp1187 (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Noriega's side
The recently added material on Noriega's side of the story, is accurate and NPOV (in my opinion). Would you consider separating it out into a separate paragraph, so that strutcurally it would be clear what were Bush's justifications and what were the percieved reasons by other parties in Panama and around the world? I'll give it a shot if you like and you can revert if it's no good.CSTAR 02:11, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC) I just don't have the time or desire to do it. IdioT.SavanT.i4 (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There has long been a story circulating, deriving from Noriega himself, that the reason GHWB decided to go after Noriega was to shut him up about the whole cocaine pipeline to generate Black-Ops money for guns and support the Contra War effort against Ortega in Nicaragua. Bush Sr., in his capacity of CIA director and then as the Veep, had his people scattered everywhere throughout the agency and easily fascilitated the illegal drug trade for guns thing, and even though he is named as a suspected and unindicted co-conspirator in the business, and refused to answer Congress's questions about it under claims of "executive priviledge", it's likely - IMHO - that he was guilty as suggested and Noriega was doing more than blowing smoke about it. I would have a hard time proving it or meeting Wiki standards for doing so, but the last CIA investigation report which was revised after Congresswoman Maxine Waters blew the first phony edition up on national TV - and the San Diego newspaper which exposed it originally, would be a good place to start if someone wanted to track down enough verifiable references to get that side of it included here.

Noriega's CIA Role
"For his role in advancing U.S. interests in ***South America****, notably, sabotaging the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and the revolutionaries in El Salvador, Noriega received upwards of $100,000 in pay arranged by CIA Director Bush" This article is so mediocre that whoever wrote this stinker thinks El Salvador, Nicaragua, and the rest are IN SOUTH AMERICA????--200.109.4.6 (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand the inclusion of "South America" interests in the aforementioned quote. Did Noriega have any partake in any role to aid the CIA with respect to any country in South America - excluding the fact that his role in the Colombia drug trade. Retropunk (talk) 09:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Background removal
I removed, "However, eye witness accounts reveal that the U.S. soldiers were provoking the incidents to ignite an international incident and give cause to the invasion. "... American lives were not actually in danger, and instead the United States had to work hard to provoke the crisis that made it appear American lives were in danger." " from the background section. It may make sense in Aftermath or reaction, but was certainly not part of the 4 reasons Bush gave. Superm401 - Talk 10:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No Victory
Someone has written in the results section Descisive american victory, actually, there was no result in the war, it ended in a tie after they've got Noriega, both nations withdrawed and the panamanian idctatorship ended, I'm panamanian and I saw the war, no one was declared winner.

I'm not sure how it can be a tie if the US accomplished its mission. The government was deposed. I do disagree on "decisive victory", though.

The invasion wasn't supposed to be a war against Panama, this is since the Torrijos-Carter treaty doesn't allow Panama to give, deny or help a different side because the US guaranteed the neutrality of Panama and the canal. Since at that time Panama was controlled by Noriega and the fact that he was never democratically elected, the US had to arrest him since he was controlling the canal and was denying services to some countries as well as controlling it "illegaly". The US never declared war against the Panamanian population but against the Government, the mission was to help, not to win and raid off everything. The treaty also gives Panama extra support for the defense of the country. In an brief way, no country or authority can take over Panama or the US would drive them out, they cannot take over Panama as well.

Cocoliras (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It cannot possibly be a tie given the outcome. Considering that the Panamanian casualties dwarfed the US and the operation was completed in under two months, I'd say it was pretty decisive. EvilCouch (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not what you say, it is what sources say, and the invation aims were principally to restore democracy to Panama, not to eradicate the forces. The problem was that, the Panamanian military was in their way and theyhad to move it out to continue, their aim wasn't eliminating the military, but just preventing the dictatorship from going to far away.

As with "Decisive" ... the US isn't god or an invinsible force, a Central American country vanquished great part of the US forces, a military movilization which was the second largest military battlefield since Vietnam. The Panamanian military was a formidable force compared to that of other countries.

In my opinion, the US "barely" survived, the casualties were of civilian people, admit it, a Central American force was enough for the US to movilize the latest military advancements into that battlefield. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.140.233.103 (talk) 03:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, you're neither a historian nor a military analyst and it really doesn't matter what you think regarding the subject. As far as the sources go, I'm having problems finding any that agree with you. There is an overwhelming amount of sources that say that you're dead wrong. I don't know what's with this revisionist history edits here lately, but it's absurd and needs to stop. EvilCouch (talk) 07:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There was no victory because for the US it was a mission, not an armed conflict, and the forces of Panama never fell, Noriega fell Psychologically, not military.

The US ACCOMPLISHED the mission of restoring human rights, it was a mission to help, not to damage, so how could the conflict be won by a force whose first goal was to restore the peace to a country?, they would eliminate the forces on their path but not destroy them completely.

The US final intention was to hunt down Noriega without the less turmoil or social impact, but he was so well hidden that the US had to destroy almost everything, they had no option. They had to destroy everything in order to find him (that and the fact that North Americans are quite exagerated and violent, no offense) after all, the conflict was not a war, but a massive manhunt (article reveals this) and Noriega was just extradited, there's no source that says the US had a victory against Panama.

190.140.233.103 (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

As I see you were a military infantryman of the US Military, so, do you participated or is (was) informed of the outcome of the invasion Evilcouch?.

As long as I know it was an "accomplishment" not a victory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.140.233.103 (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

A victory means the enemy was destroyed, in this case victory doesn't exist since Noriega was arrested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.140.233.103 (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't want to get involved in the current edit war on how the outcome of should be characterized...
 * However, given the extensive civil disorder that followed the invasion, maybe "victory" might be too charitable a characterization. Nevertheless, if you can find an official US army historical document (not somebody's thesis or an unpublished paper as is currently cited) that calls it X Y or Z, then that could be a characterization that we could use. Characterization of the outcome of the invasion from the Panamanian's side should at least be taken into consideration to maintain a neutral point of view.--CSTAR (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be left as an accomplishment, since "victory" would mean each other declaring war, and though Panama declared war on the US, the US was to depose a leader, not to kill their forces. The USA accomplished their mission and their goals but that is not victory, it is just bad wording, it would mean the USA "accomplished" their goals and succefully ended their mission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.140.233.103 (talk) 05:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The accuracy of the statement that "Panama declared war on the US" is questionable. The declaration approved by the Panamanian legislature stated that "a state of war exists between Panama and the United States" (paraphrasing) referring to what the Panamanian government claimed where overtly hostile maneuvers by the American military. The declaration has been construed (by many political writers and participants in the events leading up to the invasion, including Noriega) as an observation of fact much like "a state of meteorological devastation exists". Whether this in fact constitutes a declaration of war in any legal sense is highly dubious.--CSTAR (talk) 05:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In my eyes, "victory" is in military terms and that is hardly arguable. In any case, no one is in a position to characterize a side in this dispute as inserting "vandalism", so let's not go down that road.  NSIprogram (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should just forget "victory" to have a neutral POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.218.69.199 (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, so having your POV stated in the article is NPOV? I won't edit war more with you, but the military propoganda POV ignores the obvious:  Who had control of the battlefield?  US Troops.  Not a "declared war"?  How 18th century - do we do that anymore?  It was a military invasion of another country, we controlled the battlefield and attained our objective - the capture of the chief of state of the opponent - and we left.  Sounds like a military action, and we won!  Ratagonia (talk) 00:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

But how could it be an invasion if US troops where stationed since the beginning of the 1900's? If it was an invasion then you wouldn't have any troops in Panama before the Operation. What you did where military exercises, and even so, if it was a victory, the Panameñista Party and the Panamanian Civilian Crusade would have to be included, since they participated in the military maneuvers with you. As a proof of it, I was with many friends interacting with ten US troops, telling them what had happened the days before. Look for the other discussions which describe the possibility of the invasion not being so. In reality, it was a series of exercises and then a capture of Noriega, without mentioning you put him in power and had contributed to state terrorism more than one time. The Civilian Crusade caused widespread protests and riots and absorved part of Noriega's troops, and most Panamanians, even working class like me, dissapproved Noriega, so you cannot take all the nation on Noriega's side. Also, you don't have citations that back such a thing. If you won, then include the Civilian Crusade, because Panamanian Civilians also participated and won! 201.218.86.201 (talk) 02:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well no. While US troops had been stationed in the Panama Canal Zone, they were not stationed in occupation of the nation of Panama.  Also, while there were US troops in the Canal Zone (slightly more than a reinforced brigade), the vast majority of troops involved in Nimrod Dancer/Just Cause were from CONUS, such as the 7th Infantry (light) Division from California and the 82nd Airborne Division from North Carolina.  There was, in fact, a large, combined-arms  invasion force.  Yes, there was civil unrest but unless you have a source that states that Panamanian civilians were engaged in armed combat actions alongside US forces fighting the PDF then there will be no mention of a shared victory.  Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 03:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Woah, wait a second there, according to this Spanish-language source, actually, the US forces never captured Noriega, according to the document, he could have escaped and could have fled away, however, Sebastian Laboa, the religious leader that granted Noriega asylum convinced Noriega to freely hand over himself. Later, he decided to hand over himself, VOLUNTARILY to US Forces, thereby making US military maneuvers a waste of time and resources. Also, there was never a declared withdrawal declaration from the Panamanian part, and there were still intact army forces. Also, the Panamanian Defense Forces still had intact equipment and armament on the countryside, near non attacked cities. In a more simple way, Noriega withdrew himself and the mission was accomplished, but without a military "victory" over Panamanian forces, since the result of the accomplishment was defined in Civilian terms.

201.218.86.201 (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No, there really was a victory, I was there. PDF and Dingbat units were surrendering en mass to our superior firepower, tactics, and intestinal fortitude. Having intact equipment is irrelevant, the Germans and Japs had plenty of intact equipment after WWII but it was still an allied victory. L0b0t (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Please note that "Jap" is a racial slur; you're not helping your case by using it.
 * Your personal experience cannot be the basis for a discussion on content here.
 * Victory is as much a diplomatic term as a military one. It's clear that the Panamanian fighting capability was destroyed. Whether that lead to a victory is something that you cannot claim without some authoritative credible source. For instance, can you produce an official US Army historical document that refers to its as a "US victory"?  The military mission was certainly successful to the extent that Noriega was captured and his regime was overthrown.  However, the looting and disorder which followed is hardly a victory.
 * To whomever initiated this "votation" (an anonymous user it appears) Wikipedia is supposed to settle disputes by consensus, not "voting".--CSTAR (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry you feel that way mate. But Jap is not a racial "slur" it is, rather, the short, informal form of Japanese.  Just like "Brit", "Aussie", "Ami", "Turk", "Kurd", "Pole", "Scot", "Welsh" are short, informal uses of British, Australian, American, Turkish, Kurdish, Polish, Scotsman, and Welshman.  Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a slur. You needn't look very far to see that it is in fact a slur: From the lead of the wikipedia article Jap
 * Jap is an English abbreviation of the word "Japanese." Today it is regarded as an ethnic slur, though English-speaking countries differ in the degree they consider the term offensive.
 * Further down in the article, there is a more authoritative claim:
 * In the United States and Canada, the term is now considered derogatory; Webster's Dictionary notes it is "usually disparaging".[5] In the United Kingdom it is considered derogatory, and the Oxford dictionary defines it as offensive.[6]
 * Please don't use it again in Wikipedia discussions. Thanks.--CSTAR (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a personal Point of view, and even so, if that was the case then it should be the government of Panama, because civilians weren't actually supporting the government. 201.218.86.201 (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Um, I think in plain English, the American Military achieved its objectives, therefore, it WAS a victory. Whether it need to be stated in the results section is another question...  Perhaps we should have a vote: Ratagonia (talk) 06:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Victory or No Victory - Votation
In the Infobox, should this be characterized as a "US Victory"? Some discussion above. I believe the other part ("Arrest of Manuel Norriega") is not in dispute, yet.Ratagonia (talk) 06:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

CLARIFICATION: The current suggestion is to have the "result" field of the infobox say: "US Victory, Arrest of Manuel Norriega". (Please ignore my snide comment). Ratagonia (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

YES - the plain truth is, it was a US Military Victory.Ratagonia (talk) 06:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was most certainly a victory. The only users who have argued against victory have been using an unusual, strangely pedantic, definition of the term. The suggestion that because the PDF still existed and had undestroyed equipment at the end of the conflict there was no US victory is just silly. Victory conditions were met, we took Pineapple-face into custody (even though he tried to hide under the metaphorical dresses of the Pope.) We removed him as leader of the nation-state of Panama and we enabled free and democratic elections. Smells like victory. L0b0t (talk) 14:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. A military force comes into a country, forces that country's military to stand down and deposes the country's leader. How is that not a victory? EvilCouch (talk) 23:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 201- Here is the place to VOTE and comment on the use of the word "Victory". Please do not edit-war it on the page - VOTE here and see how things shake out. Ratagonia (talk) 05:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 201- Other "police actions" are called victories, too, including our actions in Somalia, and the invasion of Grenada. No reason not to call this a Victory. Ratagonia (talk) 05:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't voted yet, I'm against victory because it doesn't tell us the results, just what nation accomplished its results. In fact, the "Result" section should be EXCLUSIVELY to the successes that happened, and a victory explains a condition, not a success. Also, the word victory is not used in many other articles where the US had accomplished their goals. In fact, placing victory would mean we would have to strip the section of the true results, since saying "victory" and then placing the results would be repeating the same thing over and over again. Also, this is not if it was or not a victory, but if it was correct to include the term on the box. You should also consider removing the thing above, if I'm the only one of the three which think it wasn't a victory, its obvious I'm going to lose, let other editors in!. 201.218.86.201 (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I have found something to compare with the article. Since the invasion was part of a larger, Panamanian Civil War, the results were similar to those specified on the Costa Rican civil war. The Panamanian Civilian crusade participated in demonstrations and did menaced officers. The US was a third party involved in a larger conflict. Meaning that the opposition is to be included in the same way as specified above. And Panama, denotes all the nation, in reality, most opposed, so if victory is going to be placed, you should then strip the whole nation and specify "Government of Panama" because certainly, Panamanian Civilians did supported the USA. Meaning that a victory for the USA would mean a victory for Panamanian Civilians. 201.218.86.201 (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC) Updated link: Costa Rican Civil War Ratagonia (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't follow your reasoning here. Are you suggesting this was a civil war? That's a position that seems far-fetched and difficult to sustain using independent secondary sources. The most straightforward way to resolve this is to rely on some credible military history of the event. Though I don't want to gratuitously promote US military triumphalism here, the fact remains that the US military mission was successful at least in defeating Panamanian forces.--CSTAR (talk) 20:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Conflicts are usually between governments. In most wars/invasions/police actions, civilians perform quasi-military action on both sides. Unless there are actually Panamanian military units that went over to the US side and fought against other Panamanian units, it is difficult to consider them part of the military forces.  Ratagonia (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Ratagonia (talk) 00:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not true at all, in many operations, civilians are involved as a direct military threat, as seen on the Costa Rican Civil War article, where a party participated on the struggle against the government. That's the same way the Panamanian Civilian Crusade and the Panameñista Party were included. Also, the PDF forces planned to oust Noriega. This should be taken into account since it meant parts of the military deserted. Also, this was mentioned earlier. But I don't remember the claim about deserting PDF forces. The only forces which remained were the DINGBATS, forces loyal to Noriega. Also, remember that in a war, the military is not the only thing. And as I told you before, if you include US Victory, that wouldn't be writing a result at all, that is since "Victory" has been a biased thing on a very controversial invasion, in which the exact terms were not known. But, before, I would want to ask you, why do you have to write the victory thing. I think you're being kind of nationalist. Also, the result field is to specify the exact successes and not virtual ones like a victory, which is specifying a virtual (non-material) action. The result field should be dedicated to informing readers about what happened when the invasion finished. Which in this case, was Noriega's capture, which is the same as writing US victory. And remember that Noriega surrendered voluntarily, and without armed support, eliminating any proof of it being a military success, and stripping the success of its victory criteria, much like invasions which finish with the sign of treaties, which do not specify a victory, even if the military of such nation was brought down. In articles like those ones, they specify what happened and only that.

SUGGESTION: Writing in the result field: " Arrest of General Manuel Antonio Noriega, abolition of the dictatorship and restoration of Civilian rule in Panama". Something which is more neutral as it gives no nation the reason or triumph. But only specify the actions that happened after the invasion and what happened BECAUSE of the invasion. Which makes US VICTORY no result. 201.218.86.201 (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC) 201.218.86.201 (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * NO that is unacceptable. It was a victory, a decisive victory at that.  Do you really fail to see this or are you just being pedantic and obtuse? L0b0t (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And why is it unacceptable if the field is to place the events and not a condition.

201.218.86.201 (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I love your enthusiasm, 201, but this is a collaborative effort and this issue has been called to a vote. The discussion is very interesting, but we don't really need to novelize in the RESULTS field.   That's what the article is for. And L0b0t, please be kinder to 201 - WP:AGF As it stands now, the vote is 3 in favor, 0 against.  LAST CHANCE FOR EDITORS TO VOTE.  Thanks. Ratagonia (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

That's 3 in favor, 1 against. 201.218.86.201 (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, before the article was edited before, it remained without the word "Victory" during a long period, until someone came in and reverted the results again. Actually, there was a previous discussion about the issue before this one and no one had problems with stripping victory, because it seemed to be biased and celebrated US dominancy and triumphalism by celebrating and presuming an already known, tacit victory. Victory should be included because the fact that Noriega was captured already tells us it was a victory. So it was one, but because of the formerly said, victory shouldn't be included, it was a victory but it shouldn't be included, because its not only biased, but its also a self repeating word. 201.218.86.201 (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Clear victory: I was there before, during and after the invasion. I lived in a Panamanian neighborhood. My wife and her family, all Panamanians, including my brother in law became a politician after the invasion. It was a clear victory, not just militarily, but for the people of Panama. Yeah, I know it's wp:OR, but all knowledge isn't acquired in books. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Personal experiences are not suitable sources for Wikipedia articles. The policy is clear and irrevocable: verifiability by reference to published sources. This\\e current vote is flawed and will be reversed unless the somebody points to a source. As I said any US Army (or Marine) historical document  would be suitable. You can't just make stuff up and put in an article by vote.--CSTAR (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you think that is why I included my comments on the TALK PAGE and not in the article? I think I was pretty clear in stating that I was expressing wp:or and in pointing that out, it would lead even the most casual of editors to realize the blatantly obvious fact that I am aware of the wp:or policy. Since I am aware of it, your review of it was not only not needed, but borders on insulting. I could have simply voted and not said why. Instead, I gave a little personal insight into why I voted the way I did. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I was also there, and I know now its a victory, but here they want to exclude the Civilian Panamanians which participated. Either we include the civilians or stripe the victory thing, because that's giving the USA all the credit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.218.86.201 (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See my comment above. Your personal experience is irrelevant for this. --CSTAR (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * How about this article from the Army website that calls it a "complete success". Isn't a complete success for an army a victory? Or do you require the actual word "victory"? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That certainly justifies your use of "success" but not victory. --CSTAR (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, so you want to deal in semantics? A "complete success" for an Army isn't a victory? Right. Ok, how about the Washington Post: "Four days earlier, thousands of U.S. troops had descended on Panama City, clinching a quick military victory." The article isn't even about the combat aspect, but it is a NPOV source using the word that you are now demanding actually be used. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe the NY Times: "In the United States, a pride of the highest American officials went on television Wednesday to declare victory in what some phrasemaker had dubbed Operation Just Cause." Niteshift36 (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As a long-time WP editor I know you realize this, but it bears repeating: Wikipedia is a cooperative effort to write articles as accurately as possible.  My point is not to be condescending, but rather to be careful to a degree which may seem to border on the obstinate.  And yes semantics is very important. Writing an article is *all* about semantics and what words and sentences mean.  For example, there are subtle differences between success and victory. We should weigh those. Imagine you are formulating US Military doctrine: You have to be absolutely clear about every term you use.


 * Anyway I apologize if I caused tempers to flare, but that was not my intention. I just want to make sure we get this right.  That's why I prefer to discuss the semantics of the terms and published evidence for use of each rather than vote. Thanks.--CSTAR (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's worth pointing out that the article didn't just say "success", it said "complete success". While I agree that semantics is important, I think it's being taken overboard in this case. There is no reasonable way that I can see the US military calling something a "complete success" without considering it a victory. If you look up the word "victory" in the dictionary it is defined (by Random House) as: 1)a success or triumph over an enemy in battle or war. 4)a success or superior position achieved against any opponent, opposition, difficulty, etc. The American Heritage dictionary defines it as: 1) Defeat of an enemy or opponent. Given that Noriega was captured and the Panamanian military completely ceased to exist, I'm not sure how much more complete a defeat could be. Roget's thesarus lists "victory" as a synonym for "success". To me, this is like saying a football team won a game, but arguing that it can't be called a victory because the word wasn't used explicitly in an article about the game. Let me ask you this: In terms of the military action, when the leader was captured, the opposing army not just defeated, but totally dismantled and no longer existing after the engagement, what part makes you hesitant to use the term victory? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good question: My hesitancy comes from the fact that victory is a political/diplomatic term as well as a military one. In most regimes the military serves the interest of the state  and is a tool subordinate to foreign policy.  The US intervention had several stated purposes which in this respect were quite limited.  These mainly concerned capturing Noriega and destroying his personal political apparatus. (I'm leaving aside considerations of ulterior motives and projection of US power and influence, about which one could argue endlessly, but which I think we agree are not relevant to this discussion). In the case of WWII, WWI or other conflicts, the victory was determined by the capitulation and dismantling of the vanquished state or the expulsion of another power. No such formal capitulation occurred; Noriega was captured, but the structures of the Panamanian state (civil service) remained largely intact, and whatever was replaced was carried out by the Endara government. Use of the term victory would be in that sense misleading and I think quite contrary to its use in US military doctrine. --CSTAR (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Since there was no formal declaration of hostilities (ie a declaration of war), why would there be a formal capitulation? Second, the fact that the civil apparatus was left in place is a non-issue. We had no intention of dismantaling the civil apparatus. Our conflict was solely with the military (and paramilitary) forces that were there to defend Noriega. I doubt anyone would question our victory over Japan, yet most of their civilian apparatus was left intact as well. While the civil service stayed intact, the military service was completely dismantled (and no longer exist) and the police forces were greatly restructured to eliminate their previous ties to the (now non-existant) military. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The part of voluntary withdrawal, the General surrendered himself, but he was not captured. He was arrested after handing himself over. That makes the US goals, making the mission a complete success, however, victory is defined on military terms. The PDF forces deserted, but you didn't pressed the issue, they deserted themselves because lack of military discipline. Most (if not all) the actions that happened on the invasion were self-occurring events. Meaning the USA achieved its objectives, but never did so by the use of force. "Victory" denotes usage of force to complete a goal, "success" indicates a mission's goals have been achieved and completed, and since Noriega handed himself voluntarily that should clearly exclude victory. Success is definitely a more acceptable term, and as you said yourself, if they are synonym to each other, then as much as we can include victory we can do so with success, so we have "victory", "success" and "military victory", the two latter ones being more acceptable as the USA did made some damage. But there's a source saying success, so why can't we use a less biased "success" with a reputable source that means the same as victory. So if it is the same, why not place a less biased version. I also found here, that the word victory is ommited, despite a clear military triumph and lack of sources.

201.218.86.201 (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel you are dancing around this. The stated goal in the Army article I referenced was "to restore the democratically elected government of Guillermo Endara and arrest Noriega on drug trafficking charges." The Endara government was put into power and Noriega was arrested. Trying to split hairs over capture vs. surrender is really not relevant, since in the end he was arrested. Further, the US military could have only detained him based on the Federal indictments. They couldn't have made the arrest. Lastly, his surrender came about because of the use of military force. Had the US military not been standing outside, having already dismantled his military, Noriega would not have surrendered. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As much as you want it to be true, it isn't, there was a link to a page which said that Noriega surrendered because of an advice given by the religious figure which gave him asylum. Also, it is still discussed which of the two words should be used. I go for the more neutral one.

201.218.86.201 (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Niteshift36 You make some good points/ I'd like to think about them and respond carefully, but I'm busy at the moment. At the very least we should get a consensus of what the appropriate usage on WP for "victory" vs "success" that will be considered neutral.--CSTAR (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

VOTATION ON "VICTORY" CLOSING COMMENTS

Thanks to all editors who voted, and others that did not vote but discussed. The final vote was: 4 in support of "victory" - ratagonia, L0b0t, EvilCouch, Niteshift36. Zero votes against, and two editors (Cstar and 201) who did not vote in a clear fashion.

Wikipedia is a wonderful cooperative tool. And to some extent the "rules of cooperation" get made up anew on each page, each month. I called for a vote on this specific little issue, because what I saw on the talk page was a lot of round-and-round discussion dominated by one editor (201) with strong emotions and a POV not supported by sources or a lot of other editors, but getting his/her way through passion and obstinance. I called a vote so that a dis-passionate vote on the issue would be in the archives to inform later discussions on the same issue. In my wiki-experience, a vote is useful as each editor states very briefly their opinion and IN ONE SENTENCE, there reasons. Unfortunately, this votation was drawn into another lengthy circular discussion dominated by a single passionate editor. Who also, failed at any point to actually vote.

My interest is in the power, faith and quality of the Wikipedia. My observation is that this article is pretty skewed by propoganda terms, propogandizing and a POV that is not consistent with ALL the sources, and is not consistent with wikipedia policy. I grieve for any article that is dominated by one, passionate editor with a specific point of view that they insist is right!

So, Victory, arrest of Manuel Noriega. Please do NOT change this, doing so constitutes POV vandalism, 3 reverts will bring forth the noodly appendage of the Cabal. Ratagonia (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, making such a change does not constitute POV vandalism, although clearly I don't encourage anyone to engage in edit warring. Editorial changes without prior discussion is never a good idea.  However, the process of discussing the merits of various formulations still continues, and until some standardization of terminology is decided upon, that discussion will likely continue. I was in the midst of just such a discussion with another editor. --CSTAR (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I did voted against. But, shouldn't we have a source there. 201.218.86.201 (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Questioning Panamanian sentiment and the validity of polling
This isn't mainstream scholarship, if it is questioning that the Panamanian people encouraged and supported US intervention. There is no question that the Panamanian people overwhelmingly supported US intervention.   It dramatically skews the entry, to pretend that there's anything ambiguous at all about Panamanian support for the overthrow of the dictator. Certainly, after the fact, there were other questions, about the efficiency and sensitivity of US disengagement, and to what extent internal troubles, particularly looting, were the result of faulty US preparation. Also, US responsibility for Noriega's rise in the first place. But these points are distinct from the clear and undeniable and overwhelming support of the Panamanian population for what rightfully-elected president Endara called "liberation rather than invasion".

This seems to be an important point, in the context of contemporary US foreign policy, and one which many political forces active today would love to see misrepresented. I don't mean to question the good faith of the recent addition, only to suggest that the sources that inform it may have ulterior motives which are served by revisionism. This source itself seems to refer to a film rather than a book, the Amazon blurb of which begins "Years before the US went after Saddam Hussein, the White House had Manuel Noriega".

Just wanted to get this out there. Looks like political trickiness to me, to obscure the fact that the US never would have gone in without Panamanian support. DBaba (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * repeating the same source over-and-over again does not make it more valid. The CBS poll is cited by several books that are all from the same (US Conservative/Republican) point of view.  The point made is valid - The CBS poll was conducted in the rich, english-speaking neighborhoods where Panamanians were most likely to support the invasion.  I am re-inserting this reference, but rewording things for greater accuracy and NPOV.  Ratagonia (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Illegal?
Isn't the "illegal invasion of Panama" a bit subjective? —Preceding unsigned comment added by M1470 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course the US had just cause in invading the canal they'd finished the construction of, and had a neutrality pact with and military risks in, especially as Panama was run by a merciless tyrant determined to kill an entire community in the zone of conquest, not to mentioned illicit trade with an enemy of the peace, drug dealers. The glorious Bush sent more troops to the Canal zone and captured Noriega, an act whose near ban at the UN was vetoed by the unhypocritical British and French, faithful to their friends. A mere thirty three years earlier, America had teamed up with its morally sound, democratic and well-behaved long-standing buddies (the Soviets) against those vile Israelis and evil British and French, who had constructed the Suez canal (If D'Israeli and Rothschild are included), then a neutral zone in which they had military risks. At the time, Egypt was run by a wonderful leader bent on using the canal for trade with America's best friends (Russia again) for arms to drive those vile Jews into the sea. At the UN, the glorious Eisenhower rescued the situation by nobly betraying the evil British, etc., by threatening a run on the pound through a withdrawal of all US investment in his control, and sending some menacing naval convoys, as though he would actually fire at British and French ships. The US was right on both occasions because the US had 'just cause', unlike the Limeys, Frogs and Israelis who were just hostile invaders.

Invasion?
American forces were stationed in Panama LONG before the 1980's. We merely reinforced the troops we already had there and moved out of our bases. How do you invade a country you're already in? I may be getting kind of literal, but I feel it's an important distinction to make. I have a book that supports this view: Semper Fi: The Definitive Illustrated History of the U.S. Marines by H. Avery Chenoweth and Brooke Nihart--AtTheAbyss (talk) 12:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right; The US "reinforced" units that were already in country, however, the real question is when did the "Invasion" start? Operation Just Cause kicked off that night, but the US had really started putting troops there as far back as Roosevelt sending in US Marines to "protect" the construction workers building the Canal. Of course this "Security" operation was a "Liberation" operation because Panama wasn't actually a country yet, they were a territory of Colombia which decided to "independently" make a Treaty with the US against their Colombia Governments' wishes. ANYWAY, The course of events that this article defines/explaines is most popularly recognized as the Invasion of Panama, so the name should stick; whether its accurate or not. SFjarhead (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Calling it something other than an Invasion ignores the obvious. The USA had tanks roaming the streets, was blowing up buildings and engaged in firefights with Panamanian units. Perhaps US Troops were allowed on their bases, but when the troops leave their bases and attack 'targets' in Panama, that is an invasion.   The USA had some kind of understanding/treaty with the Panamanian govt regarding where and when troops were allowed to be - I bet attacking Panamanian units was not part of that agreement.  Ratagonia (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Part of Cold War???
Is there a source that indicates this is part of the Cold War? I am removing this until such a source indicates it. Ratagonia (talk) 07:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Civilian Casualties were Panamanians
and therefore should be listed on the Panamanian side of the docket. Ratagonia (talk) 07:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

IP Address editors
PLEASE, sign up as a true wikipedian, so better dialogue can take place. Thanks. Ratagonia (talk) 00:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Extradition? - REQUEST FOR COMMENT
from the [Extradition] article: "Extradition is the official process by which one nation or state requests and obtains from another nation or state the surrender of a suspected or convicted criminal. Between nation states, extradition is regulated by treaties. Among sub-national regions (for example, the individual states of the U.S.), where extradition is required by law it is more accurately known as rendition."

201... inserts the word "extradition" for the movement of Noriega to Miami to stand trial. I object. Noriega was captured (ok, surrendered) to US Forces. US Forces are unable to extradite from Panama to the US, because they are not the judicial system of Panama. Use of the word "extradition" is POV, and it should not be used. I prefer the word "flown", which we can all agree is true, and is free of POV baggage.

"Flown" or "Extradited" - EDITORS PLEASE COMMENT. Ratagonia (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"Flown" - extr.. is POV and demonstrably untrue. Ratagonia (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that "extradited" is a POV term. However, it is for the reasons mentioned, inaccurate. Noriega surrendered, and was taken (by plane) to the US. "Flown".--CSTAR (talk) 03:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with CSTAR. While I don't feel that there is anything at all prejudicial about extradition ( it's merely a term of art), it is, in this case, inaccurate.  If the Panamanians had extradited him the invasion would never have happened. L0b0t (talk) 04:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The lead up
This is a just leaked cable from the US Embassy of Panama from before the invasion, it maybe be able to add relevant data, but I don't know how to write articles: http://wikileaks.ch/cable/1989/12/89PANAMA8545.html 68.34.12.179 (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Found Citation
Underneath Casualties

This paragraph: Physicians for Human Rights in a report issued one year after the invasion,[24] estimated that "at least 300 Panamanian civilians died due to the invasion"; another by former Attorney-General Ramsey Clark claimed over 4,000 deaths.[25]. The report also concluded that "neither Panamanian nor U.S. governments provided a careful accounting of non-lethal injuries" and that "relief efforts were inadequate to meet the basic needs of thousands of civilians made homeless by the invasion". The report estimated the number of displaced civilians to be over 15,000, whereas the U.S. military provided support for only 3,000 of these. Other estimates have suggested that between 2,000 and 5,000 civilians died, some arguing that this was a result of use of excessive force and novel weapons by the U.S military.[citation needed]

The reference can be found here: http://www.skepticfiles.org/socialis/panama39.htm That is a report by the Central American Human Rights Commission (CODEHUCA) - They speak of "disproportionate use of military force" done by "highly sophisticated weaponry" They also give the report of between 2000 and 5000 civilians killed. I'm not an expert wikipedia editor so I would ask someone else to edit the actual document to include this source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruiser07 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Needs balance
This article would benefit from a more balanced approach, and if it removed second-hand citations that rely on allegations - someone wrote a book on Panama and in it they said there was an internal army document. Either cite the army document or take out the charge. The section on casualties really needs work. It cites Ramsey Clark and Physicians for Human Rights, neither of whom is objective, and an another unsourced allegation that says there were 4000. If we're going to cite one side of the story we should cite the other.Gaintes (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that a lot of the stuff seems to come from some books written with a biased view. But I don't agree about the casualties. The section included estimates ranging from about 500 up to 5000 and who made many of those estimates. So I'd say there is a pretty broad representation already in the story. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Commanders
The info box listed Max Thurman and George Bush. Yeah, I know the President is the Commander in Chief, but he wasn't really in command. Thurman was the CinC for Southcom at the time and all naval, air and ground forces were under his immediate control. I think he should be listed as the commander and Bush be removed. Opinions? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

US strength : 27684 (sum up) or 57684 ("Invasion", second paragraph) ?
91.88.229.91 (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Air combat
I remember at the time reading stories in the newspapers about re-built WW2 planes being used by the Panamanians - was there any truth in this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.252.188 (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Too-detailed minutia
The "Timeline" and "Major Operations" sections are too detailed for an encyclopedia article on this topic. I just removed the "Units Involved" list from this section, but what remains still needs to be trimmed way back with less detail that is only of interest to military personnel and military historians. Tempshill (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I refer you to the list of categories at the bottom of the page which includes: History of Central America | Military history of Panama | Military history of the United States 1900-1999 | History of the United States (1980–1991) . I think you will find that history is in fact a valid subject for inclusion in Wikipedia. Besides, where's your sense of humor? I also find it of no interest whatever, and yet I derive great satisfaction from looking at a list of what I personally consider trivia, from the fact that it is trivial. The relevant requirement for inclusion in WP is in fact WP:V and its attendant rules, in particular WP:CITE Anarchangel (talk) 00:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe too detailed, but if one sees lists of specific military devisions and units it automatically sounds legitimate. And one can say that perceived legitimacy is of critical importance as an objective for any invasion. Lists of data does not only immediately seem like a lot of supportive legitamate facts but can also make any information contradicting the perceived legitimacy seem insignificant because of its relative lack of quantity. It should be left in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sohrab R (talk • contribs) 11:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Timeline
Could someone check the date of the March coup attempt? The background section lists it as March 1989, but the Timeline section gives the date as March 1988. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.162.228 (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

'units involved'
Citations should be given for the involvement of specific units in specific capacities or engagements. E.g. the cite for the Hollywood Guard which includes, "The ANG CORONET COVE units, the 114th TFG and the 18Oth TFG flew 34 missions, completed 34 sorties, expended 71.7 flying hours and expended 2,715 rounds of ordnance." 114th & 180th TFG should be listed based on that cite, and the cite is all that is needed; the reader, if interested, can follow the link. Strictly speaking, no units that can't be cited as involved should be included, but as the format proves, considerable leeway to inclusion is given until a cite can be found. Nor is the citation requirement a mandate for removal of entire sections, because the deletor can't be bothered to find citations or finds it more convenient to ignore that the material is cited. Note that removal of citations, as happened with the Hollywood Guard entry, is the reverse of what we should be doing here. Anarchangel (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Photos
Please note we have two photos of the same APC parked in the same laundry. One caption says it is a Panamanian vehicle, the other says it is American. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 14:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC) The 1st Battalion (Airborne) 509th Infantry was not part of the invasion of Panama. That unit was a training unit at Ft. Chaffee and not a combat unit. The picture looks to be a jump that C co. 1/508th conducted outside the Northern city of David after the initial invasion. The only units to make combat jumps were elements of the 82nd Airborne Division and the 75th Ranger Regiment. Wilx1 (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)wilx1
 * The first pic (the smaller one) probably could be removed. I changed the caption though. The PDF never had M113's. Their "armor" was mainly V-100's. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Operation Just Because, hostages
The invasion was widely known also as Operation Just Because and I recall photographs of that slogan on walls in Panama City. Also, a group of scientists (US and other nationalities) were taken hostage from a Smithsonian field station in the San Blas archipelago. --Una Smith (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent IP edit
Can someone verify the recent modifications by IP, I think they may be changing the bias of the article and am not sure if the commentary is warrented. Sadads (talk) 11:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind roll backed all, a little too biased. Sadads (talk) 12:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Origin of Just Cause
There is seemingly contradicting information in this section and a lack of reference:

The statement, that the name "Just Cause" was primarily used by the United States military for planning is at odds with the next sentence stating that Just Cause was planned under the name Blue Spoon which was later changed to Just Cause for aesthetic and public relations reasons." Was the operation planned under both names or was the name changed later? What does changed for aesthetic purpouses mean and is there a source for these reasons for the change in opperation name?

Sohrab R (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Reason with reference found and added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sohrab R (talk • contribs) 11:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

January 31
The infobox says that the conflict ended on January 31, 1990. And yet, I cannot find any mention of that date anywhere else in the article. What happened between the 12th (end of Just Cause) and the 31st? Is there a policy against ending conflicts on days other than the end of the month? (That last line was intended to be sarcastic.) -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû  (blah?)  13:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy
Several errors have been introduced into this article since last I visited - a long time ago. A few observations:

First, I see the task organization for TF Bayonet has been edited to include troops that were not actually part of that TF. Specifically only one platoon from C/3-73rd Armor and one platoon from D/2nd LAR were part of TF Bayonet. Neither of these companies as a whole were ever part of TF Bayonet. There seems to be quite a tendency for units to "fudge" their participation to make it sound greater than it was (as the following paragraphs help illustrate).

Second, a couple battalions from the 7th ID that deployed after JUST CAUSE had ended - and after PROMOTE LIBERTY had begun - have been included as participants in the former. This is not correct and they were not part of JUST CAUSE. When they did deploy, the were attached to TF Bayonet (TF Bayonet ended up controlling 7 maneuver battalions during PROMOTE LIBERTY as the other TF headquarters had deployed back stateside). If we are going to include post-JUST CAUSE units in this troop list (which I don't think we should), then they should be listed under their operational headquarters, with their stateside commands noted in parentheses.

Third, the errors in troop lists also pop up in the "Invasion" paragraph. The 1-61 Mech (reflagged while in Panama to the 5-6 Mech) was part of Operation NIMROD DANCER, and redeployed back statside well before JUST CAUSE. They should not be in the "Invasion" paragraph - and the note in that paragraph that they left in Sept 89 doesn't make it right. As for the 1138th MP Company, only 22 members of the company - less than a platoon were involved; citing every detachment of this size would be ridiculous and some level of standardization should be used. As another example, when mentioning major task force headquarters, some subordinate units are mentions while others are not, and there appears to be no rhyme or reason (see TF Bayonet, where 2-508 ABN and 59th Engr Co are mentioned, but the bulk of the rest of the TF is omitted). In other cases, CSS units are enumerated for some task forces, but omitted for others. Finally, in some cases, all organic subordinate units are listed, while in other cases, only the non-organic attachments are listed. Someone needs to do some editing for quality and consistency. By the way, this paragraph's body sentence leads off with "Ground forces consisted of combat elements of the . . . " and ends with "2nd Marine Logistics Group." Don't think the latter is a ground combat force.

Fourth, the "Operations" section reads like an advertisement for the 7th ID, with entries for other TFs having been deleted or neglected. The POV here is terrible. Of the five brigade-level task forces fighting in Panama on D-Day (TF Red (Ranger), TF Bayonet, TF Atlantic, TF Pacific, and TF Semper Fi) and several major SOF task forces, for some reason only the 7th ID has coverage. The far more significant battles in and around Panama City on D-Day - which the 7th ID did not participate in - are ignored in favor of the coverage of a single battalion of the 7th deploying into Colon and the movement of follow-on 7th ID units from CONUS (the battalion from the 82d, also engaged vic Colon that day being omitted for some odd reason). The general lead-in comment "All 27 objectives related to the Panamanian Defense Force were completed on D-Day: December 20, 1989" is not adequate - especially as those 2 objectives have not been identified. I know there must be space trade-offs, and part of the D-Day operations were sketchily covered in the "Invasion" paragraph, but this needs considerable work to provide a balanced, coherent portrayal of the ground battle.

Fifth, the earlier mentioned comment ("All 27 objectives related to the Panamanian Defense Force were completed on D-Day: December 20, 1989") is debatable. The OPLAN was clear that this was a "force-oriented" attack, that is, destruction or neutralization of enemy units were the primary objective - not seizure of terrain, such as empty garrisons. In fact, many US attacks arrived too late to engage those PDF units (Panama Viejo, Fort Cimmaron, etc.) while other attacks simply pushed the PDF out of their garrisons, but enabled the PDF units to escape (Tinajitas, Fort Espinar, Rio Hato, etc.). Stating that all 27 objectives were completed is more than a bit misleading, if not downright inaccurate.

Sixth, the article states that the area around the Commandancia (Chorrillo District) was defended by Dignity Battalions. This is incorrect. The Dignity Battalions were primarily a Noriega propaganda fiction for media consumption. It was a deception operation. The alleged Dignity Battalion members vic the Commandancia were in fact members of the 7th PDF Company posing as DigBats. (The 7th Company and two of its platoons redeployed from Rio Hato to the Commandancia in October 1989 following the coup. Only one platoon of this company was present when the Rangers assaulted Rio Hato.)  In fact, the Commandancia defenses (which included three concentric defensive perimeters extending throughout Chorillo) were manned by the following forces in addition to the PDF 7th Company: A Co(-) & C CO(-), Bn 2000, Grupo 1, UESAT, one platoon each from the PDF 1st, 2nd and 6th (V150/V300s) Companies and the 1st Public Order Company (Riot police). [Data drawn from USARSO Threat Dispositions, early Dec 1989, and TF Gator After Action Report.] This accounts for the ferocity of fighting around the Commandancia, which lasted 18 hours and saw seven M113s from 4-6 Mech knocked out as well as three helicopters.

Seventh, PURPLE STORMS were NOT part of the JCS directed PRAYER BOOK series and did not eventually become BLUE SPOON. Following the links shows that the supposed references in no way support these assertions. PURPLE STORM exercises were initiated at least a year after the initial BLUE SPOON OPLAN and were a local initiative by USSOUTHCOM to emulate the SAND FLEA exercises conducted by USARSO forces. The actual descriptions of PURPLE STORM and SAND FLEA exercises listed in the "Related Operations" section are accurate. They were, however, exercises, not operations, so their inclusion here is questionable.

Eighth, this is told strictly from the perspective of US forces. There is no description of the PDF defensive plans or how they carried out - or attempted to carry out - those plans. No mention of the three PDF counter-attacks nor is there mention of the attempted counter-attack by elements of Bn 2000 during the battle at the Commandancia. Surviving PDF officers presented a series of Officer Professional Development classes to USARO personnel in 1990 that showed a fight significantly different from that understood by US commanders and reported in official US histories. Many of the US conclusions and interpretations of combat actions were naturally incomplete or simply in error. The PDF perspective is necessary.

There are many other errors (such as organized resistance at Fort Amador did not end until appx 1700, 20 Dec), but I think this is enough to make the point. I don't envy the editor of this page. 97.77.30.161 (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You seem quite knowledgeable in this field. "I don't envy the editor of this page." Perhaps you are not familiar with how the Wiki works, but that editor would be YOU! Or, at the least, could you provide links to what you consider the definitive deployment lists???  Ratagonia (talk) 03:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

infrastructure damage
One of the controversites behind the invasion, in addition to the matter of civilian casualties, is the large amount of infrastructure damage incurred by the invading US forces. There were (limited) efforts to rebuild this afterwards, but we should mention the scale of the initial damage. This of course was connected to the (already mentioned) large number of civilians displaced by the invasion. 173.3.41.6 (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Cold War category
Timeline of conflict apart( 1989-1990), why in the heck this war is even in the "Cold War" category? The US Army's foe were not Commie; CCCP, China and Cuba do not support them in any manner; and, last but not least, the Eastern Bloc and their allies had other stuff more important to be thought. One should think, indeed, to put it in the Banana Wars category, or in another category per se... —Preceding unsigned comment added by A. Bahn (talk • contribs) 09:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Rangers did not wear camo material on their kevlar helmets in 1989. The 7th I.D. did.
Someone keeps claiming that the soldiers with camouflage material on their helmets were Rangers. This is incorrect. The only American soldiers that wore camo on their helmets in 1989 were soldiers from Fort Ord's 7th Infantry Division. Here is a Fort Ord postcard that proves it.....

fort ord soldiers

I was a field artilleryman in Fort Ord in 1989 and was deployed to Panama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.236.42.250 (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The answer here is simple: Quit trying to identify the unit. The source itself, which is the US Army, does not identify them. However, it should be pointed out here that your claim that only the 7th ID was using them isn't correct. If you look at the source on page 21, you will see 2 Rangers. One is wearing the the "cabbage patch" helmet and the other one has it sitting in front of him. An official US Army site is much more reliable than your subjective claims about a unit you weren't assigned to. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The photo on the other website of the two Rangers to which you refer is incorrectly labeled. They are not Rangers. Try to produce a photo of a Ranger in 1989 with "cabbage patch" material on their heads and a Ranger tab on their shoulder. You won't be able to. Were you in Panama in 1989? I was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.236.42.250 (talk) 03:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's my personal photos from 1989 Panama.... http://kingofbattle.shutterfly.com/26 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.236.42.250 (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * To answer your first question, yes, I was. And I wasn't just some guy deployed there for a couple of weeks. I was there before, during and after the invasion, for a couple of years. The "other website" that I linked you to is an Army website. I know personally that the 7th weren't the only ones wearing it, but that's immaterial because what I know or what you say you know doesn't matter. What matters on Wikipedia is what you can prove with a reliable source. Your pictures don't prove that the 7th were the only ones. Similarly, your subjective opinion about whether or not the photo on the Army site is correctly labeled or not means nothing. The Army IS a reliable source, you aren't. Save your time with this "I know it" or "I was there" stuff becuse it won't fly anywhere on Wikipedia. You might want to read WP:IKNOWIT, WP:RS and WP:V. Just for fun, you might also read the essay WP:TRUTH. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Government websites don't make mistakes, huh? Like I said, you cannot produce a photo from 1989 of an American soldier with material on their helmet and a shoulder patch that is not the 7th I.D. patch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.236.42.250 (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously, you didn't read a damn thing that I recommended to you. I didn't say government websites never make mistakes. You simply made that up. It doesn't matter what you think you know, what you claim to know or what you claim you've done. You are not a reliable source. Period. So stop worrying about what you think, what you claim to have seen or claim to have done and worry about what you can prove. I changed the caption on the film because the source doesn't support you or the other editor. What we DO know is that they are US soldiers and that is how the caption reads. I don't need to produce a photo meeting your personal criteria. I can produce one that Wikipedia considers reliable. Arguing about it is pointless because I'm not adding any other pics and the current caption is neutral. Make sure you can prove everything with a reliable source. Thus far, the sources you've produced aren't even close to RS. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The current photo caption is fine. I am disputing your claim that other divisions were also wearing material on their helmets. YOU are wrong. But as long as your inaccuracy is not on the main page, everything is fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.236.42.250 (talk) 04:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC) By the way, since Wiki rules are so important to you, I doubt that you using the word "damn" in this discussion is Wiki-approved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.236.42.250 (talk) 04:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Tell yourself whatever fairy tale you want about who is wrong. I know for a fact that the 193rd Infantry Brigade did it too. Thinking that your own observations are the only ones is pretty myopic. Also, learn to sign you posts. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You're not my boss. I don't have to sign my posts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.236.42.250 (talk) 06:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you don't have to. You can continue to look like you can't accomplish the most basic of tasks. And you can continue to ignore the established behavioral guidelines. It's your perogative to ignore the rules I guess. What a hardcore rebel. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hypocrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.236.42.250 (talk) 08:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess hypocrite means something different in California than it does in the rest of the English speaking world. But whatever dude. I've had about all the fun and games I intend to here. Unlike you, I've read the policies and understand them. Maybe when you finally do, you'll realize why I can't take you seriously. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh so now you are stalking my location, huh? Is stalking, arguing, and using the word "damn" included in wiki "policies"? Hypocrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.236.42.250 (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Now you're starting to go to far. First off sport, you IP is recorded for every entry. Wikipedia provides a geolocator tool at the bottom of your page. That is hardly stalking. But if you want to see if you can find someone who would actually entertain your silly accusation for a second, WP:WQA is that way. Second, I can say "damn" all I want sunshine. That doesn't violate any policy at all. You're all about proving stuff? Quote me the "damn" policy that says I can't say it? You won't be able to because, there isn't one. What did we prove? That you don't have any idea about what the applicable policies actually say and that you are perfectly willing to fabricate (that's a nice way of saying "make stuff up") things. You can't tell someone that they broke a policy when you don't even know what the policy is. Frankly, I'm starting to doubt that you even served. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Look at the top of this page, hypocrite. "Be polite. Assume good faith. Avoid personal attacks. Be welcoming." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.236.42.250 (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, seriously, reading comprehension is something you need to work on. Saying "damn" is not a personal attack, nor is it particularly impolite. Saying "damn" doesn't violate any policy. Further, the guideline (not a policy) that you are incorrectly referring to, isn't a suicide pact. When you stop acting in good faith, you can't expect people to treat you as if you are. You have steadily refused to even read the applicable policies. If you think you can make a case about an actual policy violation, please, go report it and let me know how that works out for you. Or you could continue acting like you have no idea what you are doing. Thanks for the laughs. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course I don't expect you to treat nicely. You have the mental capacity of a pet rock. My point is that you are just as childish as I am. Duh. Winning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.236.42.250 (talk) 22:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep telling yourself that sport. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest you change your name to NiteHypocrite36? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.236.42.250 (talk) 01:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You could suggest it and I'll give your suggestion all the consideration it merits. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The 193rd Infantry brigade did not wear camo on their Kevlar. I was with the 193rd (the 1/508th to be exact) for two years; 1988-90. Those men depicted are definitely with the 7th ID. The camo on the Kevlar was Division SOP. Wilx1 (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Wilx1
 * Yes, soldiers in the 193rd did. Maybe not all of them. Maybe not as SOP. And frankly, I don't care if it was a randome platoon or the whole brigade. It was done. Since neither one of us is a reliable source, who cares?. The Army, which is who says they are Rangers, is a reliable source. Further, the caption now says US soldiers, which is 110% accurate. Done. Move on. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Not to throw fuel on the fire but I know for a fact that A 3/75th did indeed wear cabbage patch helmets in Panama during the invasion. I have no pictures myself but if you search for images of the Rangers at Rio Hato you can find some photos that show the scroll and the cabbage patch helmet. 3777jed (talk) 10:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)3777jed  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3777jed (talk • contribs) 09:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Two veterans of the same operation arguing over camo on helmets? The Hell? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.57.178.125 (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)