Of course everyone knows it’s trivial for police to apprehend home invaders because invasion implies that they stay after they break in.

>> In geopolitics, an invasion typically refers to a military offensive in which a polity sends combatants, usually in large numbers, to forcefully enter the territory of another polity,[1] with either side possibly being supported by one or more allies. While strategic goals for an invasion can be numerous and complex in nature, the foremost tactical objective normally involves militarily occupying part or all of the invaded polity's territory. Today, if a polity conducts an invasion without having been attacked by their opponent beforehand, it is widely considered to constitute an international crime and condemned as an act of aggression.

“an invasion typically refers to a military offensive in which a polity sends combatants to forcefully enter the territory of another polity”

I don’t know how to politely say that your misreading is why I needed so many words.

Anyways, Trump removed all ambiguiti today saying the US is gonna run Venezuela. It invaded and took over.

Per the Cambridge Dictionary: "an occasion when an army or country uses force to enter and take control of another country"

In our case no 'taking control' has occurred, so this is not an invasion.

Clearly the US administration believes they have taken control.

We cannot discount an assertion that this administration is expressing faith based upon falsehoods, as they have done before.

Air operations also are not seen as invasions, and the recent stealth strikes by the U.S. in Iran are not seen this way.

It appears to me that armed troops in place that are taking and holding territory for a prolonged duration are the definition.

The dictionary definition below is "the incursion of an army for conquest or plunder."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invasion

Is Maduro and his wife "plunder?" That would stretch this meaning, I think.

Sure. But “We are going to run the country” sounds an awful lot like “conquest”.

If it comes by financial aid to the elected president and oil deals to rehabilitate PDVSA, then it is not.

"the incursion of an army for conquest or plunder."

We sent in an army for conquest but now you don’t like that definition anymore.

"something conquered, especially : territory appropriated in war"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conquest

Is this Maduro and his wife?

The object of conquest remains to be seen, and if a standing army is used to achieve it.

While that may come to pass, I think today we should call what has happened an "extra-judicial kidnapping" for the purposes of federal prosecution.

That is frightening enough.

Edit: if the Maduro kidnapping is an invasion, then it follows that the Eichmann kidnapping was likewise.

https://www.annefrank.org/en/timeline/136/israel-kidnaps-ado...

This is just making stuff up. None of the definitions offered up here posit this requirement aside from the one apparently in your head.

The United States sent ground troops into another country to depose its leader and install a government that will bend to United States demands. The president of the United States and his advisors have openly stated that this was done to take over the other country and extract money. This is an invasion by any reasonable definition, including the ones that have been shared here.

> Edit: if the Maduro kidnapping is an invasion, then it follows that the Eichmann kidnapping was likewise.

Was Eichmann the leader of Argentina? Did this action effect a systemic change in the government of Argentina or give Israel power or access to Argentinian resources?

His claims to control the country and its resources would be inadmissible as charges, because they have not happened. They would be admissible to establish intent, but that would lead to lesser charges.

While I realize that the lower limit of a legal definition of the events of the last twenty-four hours is in the thoughts of very few, no overt actions of force have been taken as yet to obtain those goals.

That lower limit is extra-judicial kidnapping.

I fail to see the relevance of this tangent. You haven’t even specified what the hypothetical inadmissible charges would be.

It seems like you are trying to say that an unsuccessful invasion should not count as an invasion, which is absurd. If Canada sent 100k troops to DC to take over America but they were all promptly killed, would that not count as an invasion?

'...no U.S. troops would be on the ground "if the vice president does what we want..."'

'[Rodriguez] also left the door open to a dialogue with the Trump administration, calling for "respectful relations," according to the Associated Press.'

https://www.axios.com/2026/01/03/trump-maduro-venezuela-delc...

My hope is that the use of the word "invasion" is premature. I fear that it will come to pass.

The semantics are cute for technical documents. But please get some perspective. Buildings and destroyed and innocent lives lost. I don't care what you call it, it's bad.