150 aircraft is not an invasion?
The War Powers Resolution (WPR) of 1973 sets a 60-day limit for U.S. forces in hostilities without a formal declaration of war or congressional authorization, allowing for a potential 30-day extension for withdrawal, totaling 90 days, after which the President must remove troops.
Airstrikes on Libya (2011): Obama administration argued they did not need Congressional authorization because the operations did not constitute "hostilities" as defined by the War Powers Resolution. Therefore, the Obama administration argued, the 60-day clock never started.
The bombings involved 26,500 sorties over eight months, including 7,000 bombing sorties targeting Gaddafi's forces.
Also, on-the-day commentary about "regime change" was very much premature. A "regime" is not a single person, it is a ruling group, a system (1). The existing regime in Venezuela is still very much in place. It is undergoing change for sure, even having a crisis (2). But as this implies, it has not yet been swapped out for something else.
1) https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/regime
2) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/07/caracas-venezu...
What I said was "on-the-day commentary about "regime change" was very much premature".
My apologies, for the avoidance of any doubt I should have said "on-the-day commentary about "regime change" having already occurred successfully was very much premature".
Does "The existing regime in Venezuela is still very much in place" not emphasise that meaning?
Is that clearer to you? I didn't think it needed to be added, but people can be creative with misreadings. This seems like a issue at your end.
They went in and out. They used force to enter, but they did not took control of another country. The government and regime is basically intact, maybe with some bruised ego assuming existing players did not tacitly allowed this to happen to promote themselves.
Functionally, the situation is very similar to the situation from before the event, except there was some display of force and it was made clear someone inside is cooperating with usa.
>"Don’t ask me who’s in charge because I’ll give you an answer, and it’ll be very controversial," Trump told a reporter.
>He was then asked to clarify, to which Trump replied, "It means we’re in charge."
Whether or not he's right, the US President's words seem to reveal an intent for the actions to result in the US being in control of Venezuela.
It might happen, if Trump doesn't get distracted by a shiny object first, but it hasn't yet.
Trump is a mob boss. He considers himself "in charge" of them now because he has clearly dominated them, expects them to comply with his future demands, and will continue to use force against them in the future if they don't do what he wants.
To me, it's simple, a foreign army enters your country in violation of your sovereignty? That's an invasion.
They kidnapped the president, lmao, what else could be more against the sovereignty of a nation.
Vague everyday language is unsuitable for contracts. When there are multiple reasonable interpretations, it's impossible to know what has been agreed. It's better to be pedantic and use precise language and narrow technical definitions of words.
Try to "aschkually" a judge irl and you'll find out. Hilarious.
In this particular case, the bets were clearly about military operations with the intention to take control of Venezuelan territory. This is the established meaning of "invasion", in contexts where people care about distinguishing between different types of military operations. But because people could plausibly interpret the word in a different way, the rules did not use words "invade" or "invasion" at all.
It just didn't work.