Okay but you chose to point to the Mirriam-Webster definition that doesn’t say anything about a standing army or holding territory.

"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.

What exactly was the object of conquest?

"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.

We have the president of the United States, who ordered the assault, saying openly that “we are going to run the country” and you ask what the object of conquest was?

It has to be taken and held by a standing army.

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...

> It has to be taken and held by a standing army

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?

Let's pretend that the International Criminal Court were to apprehend Donald Trump and take him to the Hague for trial today over this event.

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.

> His claims to control the country and its resources would be inadmissible as charges, because they have not happened.

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?

Axios has a new article with information that is germane.

'...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.

You're pointing to an article with the US threatening to do it again, and you're still trying to argue this isn't an invasion?

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.

Your argument is almost as bad as your vocabulary.