[OT] I'm Going To Enlist In The Navy

[bolen]

what country put him into power in the first place?

And this is related to gaming because . . .

 

[Mistwell]

No it's not political, we were extracating a known criminal from a seat of power. You said it yourself, their leader was a drug dealer. Therefore, we took his sorry ass out. The only people we shot at were the ones resisting us and by doing so, supporting a known criminal - making themselves criminals. We did not kill "civilians". Anyone shot by U.S. forces was a combatant because they chose to (stupidly) resist U.S. forces with lethal force. My best friend was one of the Pathfinders that dropped onto the airport. He received the Silver Star and Purple Heart for his combat actions there. I've spoken with him in detail on that mission, and believe me - there weren't too many "civilians" running around that didn't have AKs. Anyone stupid enough to open fire on U.S. forces deserves to be cut down in the hail of gunfire they receive.

Go Air Force.

Oh man, I don't think you realize what happened in Panama.

It was a surprise attack, at midnight, so nobody had a chance to evacuate. The attack started with an aerial bombardment burst upon sleeping cities, hitting 27 targets in densely populated areas. Particularly hard hit were the poor slum areas, El Chorillo and surrounding neighborhoods, where an estimated 20,000 Panamanians lost their homes. This was unlike standard military action where civilian areas are avoided. The killing seemed indiscriminate. Women, children and elderly alike were slaughtered.

This was followed by US troops storming the city streets with tanks and artillery fire. 24,000 troops equipped with highly sophisticated weaponry and aircraft were set against a country with an army smaller than the New York City Police Department. In the film footage that escaped capture and destruction by the military, is shown the indescribable carnage committed by US soldiers. Newsmen, cameras in hand, lay dead in pools of blood. Crumpled remains of cars, run over full length by US tanks, with the dead occupants still inside were visible. The systematic, large-scale burning , house after house, block after block of poor residential areas was evident. After the carnage, mass graves were excavated with military heavy equipment, where hundreds of civilians were hurriedly buried by US troops. All of that has solid, unrefuted evidence backing it up.

Various regional and international human rights commissions estimate that between 2,500 and 4,000 Panamanians were killed in the invasion.

This was a political action. You claim these people were supporting a known criminal. First, those people did not support him, nor had they had the opportunity to vote him in or out of power. In fact, if anyone can be said to have supported him, it was the US - who officially backed him and propped up his unpopular government until US policy towards him changed. Second, he was NOT a criminal in Panama at the time. He wasn't even convicted in the US at the time (which they could have done in abstentia, but chose not to). And the evidence against him to this day is pretty damn weak, and certainly does not show that the people of Panama who were killed, nor the people in the military, were aware of the drug trafficing.

We do not generally use the US Military to enforce drug charges. In fact, it's almost unheard of. We have lots of methods of dealing with international criminals, and using the military is generally not one of them.

You can agree with the actions we took (I don't), but that was NEVER my point. My point was that it did not involve an issue of religion, or equality, or us being attacked first. It was 100% politics, with the primary concern not even being the drugs (since the drugs were not even coming from there, but from further south) but it was the canal - which was a US mistake (thanks to President Carter) not a Panamanian one. It was political.

You can hide your head in the sand all you want on that one, but everyone knows it was political, and hundreds of innocents died for it. And the comment I was responding to was therefore political as well.

 

[Mistwell]

what country put him into power in the first place?

And this is related to gaming because . . .

Hahaha, perhaps you are not aware of the History behind Panama. It was the United States that put him in power there to begin with

This is not related to gaming. It is labelled as [OT] which means Off Topic.

 

[bolen]

You made both of my points explicitly.

 

[Mistwell]

You made both of my points explicitly.

Indeed, though I failed to catch the bent of your first question...

 

[Paladin]

Women, children and the elderly were not slaughtered - unless they had weapons. My best friend's squad faced every age/gender combination you can imagine - all heavily armed and not in a good mood. If they were killed, oh well. Next time the U.S. Military says, "Drop the weapon!" maybe the indiginous personell will do so. It worked in Desert Storm, eh? The Iraqis knew we would destroy them, and surrendered to CNN.

As far as the attack occuring at night with no warning - duh. You never let the enemy know you're coming and you use surprise whenever possible. That way you maximize enemy losses and minimize friendly losses. If you know anything of the Seals at the airport battle, there was warning there anyway - the Seals were ambushed on the runway.

On the fighting in civilian areas: that's where Noriega was. He ran around hiding from our Seals in civilian areas. Then he hid in a civilian building until he had enough Twisted Sister music blasted into the building.

On the people "not" supporting Noreiga: they had a funny way of showing it by shooting at the U.S. forces, eh? If they were against him I think it would be anti-climatic to resist the U.S. military. They KNEW he was an embezzling scumbag and drug dealer. They tried a coup, it didn't work. Our way worked. The evidence against him was hundreds of millions of dollars in drug money. He was a criminal and still is.

On it being a politically motivated event: maybe. It depends on whether having a criminal in charge of the world's most strategic waterway is a political motivation to eradicate him - or an intelligent one?

My head contains no sand.

Go Air Force.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Oh good grief.

How is this helping Azure Trance and the original topic?

Military action is an extension of politics by other means -- hence the discussion of the appropriateness of military action is alway political (and hence, has no business here).

I may not agree with some opinions discussed here -- but I'm not going to address that, as this isn't the place.

Probably time for the mods to step in and close this one...

 

[Mistwell]

Women, children and the elderly were not slaughtered - unless they had weapons. My best friend's squad faced every age/gender combination you can imagine - all heavily armed and not in a good mood. If they were killed, oh well. Next time the U.S. Military says, "Drop the weapon!" maybe the indiginous personell will do so.

There is solid, video proof that this is a completely false statement. I have seen video of an eldarly woman ducking down in a car, totally unarmed, whose vehicle, along with her, is run over. I have seen hundreds of buildings bombed that contained only civilians asleep. All heavily armed? 2500 people were killed in Panama at a minimum...are you really making the outrageous claim that they were all heavily armed and firing at the US troops, knowing the small size of their full military (most of which wasn't even in the city at the time)? This was not like Iraq - there were no instructions to yell "drop the weapon". If people were seen on the way to the capital, they were shot.

They KNEW he was an embezzling scumbag and drug dealer. They tried a coup, it didn't work. Our way worked. The evidence against him was hundreds of millions of dollars in drug money. He was a criminal and still is.

No, they did not know. The evidence against him was presented long after the attack, not before. There was never any evidence presented that the people of Panama knew anything about the drugs. They tried to coup not because of drugs, but because they did not like him as a leader (you know, a leader put in power by the U.S., not the Panamanians).

Even the official US stance on this issue admits fully that far more unarmed civilians were killed in this action that is normal or appropriate. Nobody who has actually taken the time to learn anything about Just Cause after the fact talks the way you do - everyone has regrets about some of our actions then, including the military. Quit beating your chest, grunting, and mindlessly supporting anything and everything our military does. We do make mistakes sometimes, and mistakes were made in Panama. You can pretend it was all justified all you like - but like you said, the truth is never political, it's just the truth.

 

[Paladin]

There is solid, video proof that this is a completely false statement. I have seen video of an eldarly woman ducking down in a car, totally unarmed, whose vehicle, along with her, is run over.

She got run over? That constitutes slaughter? WTF? That's an accident. *Note to civilians in a combat zone - run away from moving vehicles!*

I have seen hundreds of buildings bombed that contained only civilians asleep. All heavily armed? 2500 people were killed in Panama at a minimum...are you really making the outrageous claim that they were all heavily armed and firing at the US troops, knowing the small size of their full military (most of which wasn't even in the city at the time)? This was not like Iraq - there were no instructions to yell "drop the weapon". If people were seen on the way to the capital, they were shot.

You're getting all of your information second hand, I know people who were THERE and I was there myself training years later. Just because it's on the internet, doesn't mean it's true. Show me proof that we bombed sleeping civilians. How do you personally know they weren't told to drop their weapons? You ask any of them?

No, they did not know. The evidence against him was presented long after the attack, not before. There was never any evidence presented that the people of Panama knew anything about the drugs. They tried to coup not because of drugs, but because they did not like him as a leader (you know, a leader put in power by the U.S., not the Panamanians).

They DID know he was a criminal. Everyone in the country is eating cat food but the military and Noriega. News flash: 1+1 = 2. Where was the money going? Hmmm, I wonder...

Even the official US stance on this issue admits fully that far more unarmed civilians were killed in this action that is normal or appropriate. Nobody who has actually taken the time to learn anything about Just Cause after the fact talks the way you do - everyone has regrets about some of our actions then, including the military. Quit beating your chest, grunting, and mindlessly supporting anything and everything our military does. We do make mistakes sometimes, and mistakes were made in Panama. You can pretend it was all justified all you like - but like you said, the truth is never political, it's just the truth.

Where is this "official U.S. stance" stated at and by whom? What is the "appropriate number" of civilians that it's acceptable to kill? We didn't have that number. I was an Airborne - Air Assualt - Infantryman and a Ranger candidate. We were trained in Panama and taught by Just Cause veterans. I've personally spoken to these people - so if you're calling them liars - I'd suggest you talk to a veteran personally and tell them what they did there was wrong. Killing the enemy we are sent against is ALWAYS justified, it's our job.

Go Air Force.

 

[Kilmore]

ANYWAY...

Let us know what you decide to do and which way you go, Azure. And if you have any questions, you'll find that we are an invaluable reference to Navy life.

If you end up in Charleston, The Green Dragon was a nifty little gaming store a dozen or so years ago, and I hear it still is.