i say i understand why somebody wants his own country to be invaded.

and what you say about balkas invaded? was it good or not? some of countries here are better now.

50 years of suffering vs few years of violent turbulence. what is better?

The Balkans weren't invaded. That's why it worked, it was local separatism, local armies, very few international support (UN banned selling weapons and at the time, it mostly worked), and i think one offensive strike from the UN to liberate Sarajevo. Just one, after 3 years of war. And it was for humanitarian reasons. And still, Serbs talked about a "US coup" and Serbs neo-nazis blamed the jew for the loss, so revanchism was high (still is in the older generation)

The only example where it "worked" without local resistance are Japan and Germany, and again, with Japan is highly debatable.

Venezuela is a jungle, and has tanks, APCs, and a lot of missiles. The military isn't one block, but it would react as one in case of an invasion. This also isn't Irak, with flat, arid places, and multiple insurgent group. Without the Kurd resistance in the north and local Shia resistance group, the operation would have fail. You ought to see Venezuela like Afghanistan, with less mountains. And invasion would last a decade, or rather, until the next presidency, the US troops will go back, and a similar (or even worse) regime will be put in place.