Raids don't qualify.
This issue already happened with the war in the Middle East when Israel engaged in cross border raids that weren't intended to establish permanent control.
If a nation assassinates a leader, then leave the country to their own devices (which may include a more friendly replacement), I could see the ground on this logic. NEITHER of these events (killing nor elected replacement) has happened. The US has asserted control.
No part of Venezuela (referring to its sovereign territory) was indefinitely occupied by the USA. That's why the market is "No" right now.
The number of dead people isn't relevant here.
Polymarket rules sometimes diverge from what you might consider an "invasion", but those are the pre-agreed upon and standardized rules.
It's obviously far closer to assassinating a leader and leaving the country to its own devices than the complete destruction of the Iraqi army as a viable fighting force, installation of an entirely new government and extended military occupation, or even something like Russia's ultimately unsuccessful annexation of Kherson.
How slowly would it need to be done to be counted as an invasion? A day? A month?
But if the intention is some other military objective: blow up a military base, kidnap a president, etc, and get out quickly, then I don’t think the word “invasion” applies.
With certainty that is not the original meaning of the word. In Latin and in classic English, the meaning of the word is just: "enter in a hostile manner", as it can be verified in any dictionary.
As long as foreigners have entered the territory of another country by force, that is an invasion.
It does not matter which was the duration of the invasion or whether the intent of the invasion was to stay there permanently.
An invasion may be followed, or not, by a military occupation, which is "establish sustained military control".
And imagine how silly it would be if 1-5 soldiers came across the border by force and left a few minutes later and that counted as a major world event!
Oxford Languages, for one, who provide the definition used by Google:
invade /ɪnˈveɪd/ verb
(of an armed force) enter (a country or region) so as to subjugate or occupy it.
Nevertheless, even here it says clearly that "invade" refers only to "enter", and neither to "subjugate" or to "occupy".
Other dictionaries explain better the distinction between "invading" and normal "entering", which is in the manner how one enters, i.e. "in a hostile manner" or "by the use of force".
Your dictionary explains the distinction by intent, not by manner, but this is wrong, as at the time of the invasion one cannot know which is the intent, which will become known only in the future.
By this definition one could never recognize an invasion while it happens, even when one sees a foreign army entering and killing everyone on sight.
I agree however, that the Polymarket bet has specified that the object of the bet was an invasion followed by an occupation of the territory, so the conditions of the bet have not been met.
The presence is global. The threat is the same as anyone taking over another country. This is some serious hair splitting.
It's really not "serious hair splitting" to point out that they haven't "invaded" a country they haven't even attempted to maintain non-covert presence in, particularly not when you've conveniently provided the perfect analogy of a state assassinating a leader and then letting them pick a successor who might be more convenient.
Venezuela regime did not changed either. The same generals and politicials remain on power, altrough there is bound to be some power struggle between them.
Edit: I see now that you have to select one of the possible dates, scroll down to the rules section, and then expand it.