Hacker News Reader

Comment by watwut | Hacker News Reader

Dictionary defition is "when an army or country uses force to enter and take control of another country".

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.

View on HN

Does this mean that any time an invasion fails it retroactively doesn't count? For example, the Bay of Pigs event universally known as the "Bay of Pigs invasion" was not an invasion because the US never took control of any territory?

I don't expect people to answer to this comment as it makes the situation absurdly clear.

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.

Who knows? Might have been a special military operation, right? /s

Do you mean that if the US Marine Corps takes some foreign territory by force, it's not an invasion, because there is no army involved in the operation?

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.

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

In some languages and situations, "army" is a general term for the military or for a military force. In other languages and situations, it refers specifically to ground forces. Americans are usually in the latter camp, especially if they have a connection to the military.

No offense, just stating the truth. Only someone who has never been involved in a legal argument thinks that kind of "pedantry" is good for something.

Try to "aschkually" a judge irl and you'll find out. Hilarious.

I meant that the person writing the contract must be a pedant. Vague everyday language can only lead to bad things, when someone inevitably interprets in a different way.

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.

The invaders took and held some territory near the Bay of Pigs for about three days, and they were planning to stay a lot longer if the fighting had gone their way. Whereas for a raid, a withdrawal is also planned in case of mission success.

The plan was to use Maduro's capture as the mechanism for continued exertion of control.

It just didn't work.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-vows-us-in-charge-ven...

>"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.

Or it means Trump saying what Trump always says, whilst also being extremely clear that he's negotiating with Venezuela's VP, who is busy asserting equally implausibly that Maduro is the country's only president to her own audience of people that believe whatever the government says.

And yet they're directly contrary to what actually happened. We're not actually in charge and haven't made any visible attempt to take charge.

It might happen, if Trump doesn't get distracted by a shiny object first, but it hasn't yet.

What Trump means is that he has kicked the Venezuela government in the balls in order to coerce them.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com