Can you at least appreciate the irony of someone using their own definition that disagrees with yours, you arguing against their using their own definition, and then there being another widely-cited definition that disagrees with your own, which you also argue against?

I’m not arguing against the Wikipedia definition because it does not disagree with mine. It says “usually in large numbers”, aka not necessarily large numbers. It says goals are complex but “normally involves militarily occupying”, aka not necessarily occupying.

If you have to spend that many words explaining how it doesn't disagree with you, it disagrees with you.

You chose a definition that is not concise and then selectively misread it.

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

"Selectively misread" it? What are we calling having to deemphasize key components then? "Discriminately highlighting"?

You'd make an awful lawyer with that mentality.

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