Home | About | Donate

How the 1989 War on Manuel Noriega’s Panama Super-Charged US Militarism


#1

How the 1989 War on Manuel Noriega’s Panama Super-Charged US Militarism

Greg Grandin

Manuel Noriega is dead at 83. He seems like a sad footnote to the last disastrous quarter century, but the December 1989 US invasion of Panama really was a permission slip for Washington—led by both Republicans and Democrats—to waste whatever potential benefits the end of the Cold War might have brought. Remember the “peace dividend”? The Berlin Wall had just fallen on November 9, and George H.W.


#2

There's a good documentary called "The Panama Deception" I watched many years ago now, and it seems like the whole thing is on youtube, if any are interested:


#3

So many people say GHW Bush was so much better than GW Bush. GHW Bush invaded Panama ( a sovereign nation) killed so many Panamanians in the process although the war short-lived. He bombed Iraq even after Gulf War I ended. So did W before declaring war on Iraq. People that say Hussein planned to kill GHW Bush lie just as W lied about Iraq threatening world peace with WMD's and being involved in 9/11. Saddam Hussein may have had a doormat with GHW Bush's face on it but what the the USA & UK have been doing to the Iraqi people is much worse.


#4

Dr. Ray Taliaferro on his radio program KGO news talk 810 San Francisco some where in year 1999 to 2000, reported he had a close Panamaniain an friend who stated that Noriega was in the US Militaries officers club a few weeks before the invasion, and why not did the US government grab Noriega then when they the US government already knew they wanted Noriega? Why? Why?


#5

"Just 'cause." short for "Just because."

I was living in Panama right before all this went down. It was a relatively peaceful time in Panama. I'm really glad we weren't living there when all this went down or afterwards. That would have been scary.


#6

Why, you ask? If they had nabbed Noriega quietly and easily, it wouldn't have made the big media statement like an invasion would. Remember the "wimp factor" mentioned in the article? Bush had to prove he was no wimp. Also, invading gave them the opportunity to kill a bunch of brown skinned Spanish speakers down South. "That'll put the fear in them." A quiet extraction wouldn't have made the statement like a full force invasion would. Not that it was much of an invasion. There was all kinds of US military in the Panama Canal Zone at the time.


#7

"The Power Principle" utube.
Watch this 4 hour documentary to come to understand just a bit about the United States.


#8

Noriega, in Panama, Saddam, in Iraq, Khadaffi, in Libya, and Assad, in Syria. What do all these thugs have in common?

They are not our thugs!


#9

Our thugs are Bill Clinton, George Warmonger Bush, Ehud Barack Obama and Donald Chump the Chimp.:urn:


#10

Getting Noriega was not the point, it was the excuse. It was the opportunity to finally kick the "Viet Nam Syndrome", and to show the world that we could invade anyplace, anytime. On top of that, it made better TV than quietly grabbing him would have. Americans generally get real excited at images of fire and things that explode.


#11

Just listened to the re-broadcast of a 2003 radio interview on "This American Life" of Sarah York, from Michigan, the 10 yr. old pen-pal of Noriega in 1988. She and her Mom visited him...different picture, truer, too?
GHWBush, former CIA, used Noriega before crushing him. That's super-wimpy. Not Just and Colin Powell knows how it feels to be used, doesn't he...