Number of aircraft don’t seem to contribute to whether or not it’s classified as “hostilities”, much less “invasion”. Is this ridiculous ? Certainly. But it’s fairly par for the course in terms of politically complex issues in the USA.
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.
I don't follow. What are you trying to say? Your question is not relevant to the proposition that the existing regime in Venezuela is still very much in place. I don't know how to say this more clearly than "a regime is not a person (source, the dictionary)".
"Was this attempted regime change?" and "Was the regime change successful?" are two different questions. Given the facts, it's hard to deny that the purpose of this operation was explicitly regime change.
> "Was this attempted regime change?" and "Was the regime change successful?" are two different questions.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
