When a US Invasion Isn't an 'Invasion': Ask Polymarket Gamblers
According to The Guardian, the online wager platform Polymarket is refusing to pay out on bets regarding a US invasion of Venezuela, arguing that the capture of Nicolás Maduro by 'Donald Trump’s forces' doesn't meet the criteria. This legalistic squabble over definitions perfectly mirrors how the mainstream media sanitizes US military intervention: it's not an 'invasion' if it's 'liberation,'
're-establishment of democracy,' or simply 'intervention.' Where were these fastidious definitions when the US funded coups and destabilization campaigns across Latin America for decades, from Chile to Nicaragua? One might wonder if the definition elasticates based on who's doing the invading, or if the 'international rules-based order' simply applies exclusively to others. It appears that for
'America's credibility' (and for Polymarket's coffers), snatching a head of state via 'tactical surprise and air dominance'—as The Guardian describes it—doesn't quite qualify as an ''invasion'' if the 'liberated' don't put up enough of a fight or if the operation is swift. Perhaps true 'invasion' only occurs when the target is deemed sufficiently evil, or resists long enough to generate
'humanitarian crises' that justify *further* intervention. The 'rules' always seem to bend in one direction.