5 ms·
Ah, the time-honored tradition on the Internet of making up one’s own definition and confidently asserting that everyone who disagrees is wrong. Of course ever
by dpark 10mo ago
Ah, the time-honored tradition on the Internet of making up one’s own definition and confidently asserting that everyone who disagrees is wrong.
Of course everyone knows it’s trivial for police to apprehend home invaders because invasion implies that they stay after they break in.
- ethbr1 10mo agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion >> In geopolitics, an invasion typically refers to a military offensive in which a polity sends combatants, usually in large numbers, to forcefully enter the territory of another polity,[1] with either side possibly being supported by one or more allies. While strategic goals for an invasion can be numerous and complex in nature, the foremost tactical objective normally involves militarily occupying part or all of the invaded polity's territory. Today, if a polity conducts an invasion without having been attacked by their opponent beforehand, it is widely considered to constitute an international crime and condemned as an act of aggression.
- dpark 10mo agoThat definition includes what happened here. Drop all the optional conditions (“usually large numbers”, “possibly being supported”) and the core statement becomes: “an invasion typically refers to a military offensive in which a polity sends combatants to forcefully enter the territory of another polity”
- ethbr1 10mo agoCan 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?
- dpark 10mo agoI’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.
- ethbr1 10mo agoIf you have to spend that many words explaining how it doesn't disagree with you, it disagrees with you.
- dpark 10mo agoYou 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.
- ethbr1 10mo ago"Selectively misread" it? What are we calling having to deemphasize key components then? "Discriminately highlighting"?
- johnnyanmac 10mo agoYou'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.
- somewhereoutth 10mo agoProbably we can distinguish between military invasion, and the use (arguably miss use) of the word colloquially in the US for home intruders. Per the Cambridge Dictionary: "an occasion when an army or country uses force to enter and take control of another country" In our case no 'taking control' has occurred, so this is not an invasion.
- jacquesm 10mo agoI'm sure that whoever follows up Maduro will be completely confident in the fact that they will be able to set policy free of foreign influence.
- somewhereoutth 10mo agoWell, absent further interventions - possibly even a real invasion! - there is no reason for the current regime in Venezuela to change its policy very much (aside from beefing up its air defense maybe)
- jacquesm 10mo agoThey've already been threatened to play ball: "While it is conceivable that Rodríguez has agreed to co-operate with the Trump administration to save her own skin – Trump said the US was prepared carry out a second wave of strikes if necessary – she will not be seen as someone willing to implement change."
- dpark 10mo ago“We are going to run the country” - Trump Clearly the US administration believes they have taken control.
- chasil 10mo agoThis is also the man who said that he could solve all of the problems in Ukraine in a one hour phone call. We cannot discount an assertion that this administration is expressing faith based upon falsehoods, as they have done before.