[nabla9]

The US attack had no intent to control territory. It was to nab one guy. Second paragraph establishes that after intent, there must be de facto control of the territory.

1. Attack intent to control did not happen.

2. De facto control of Venezuelan territory did not happen.

[tremon]

Second paragraph establishes that after intent, there must be de facto control of the territory.

The way I read it, the second paragraph serves as the definition of territory ("any portion of Venezuela"), not as a condition for resolving the bet. The invasion doesn't need to be successful, it just needs to have the intent you specified in 1.

...which makes the entire bet like quicksand, because it relies on the public statements from a regime known for its "inaccurate" messaging.

The more interesting question for rules lawyers is whether the president itself classifies as "any portion of Venezuela" -- the claim doesn't explicitly limit itself to only geographical portions.

[monocasa]

Kidnapping the president of a country is very clear intent to exert control over a country.

The second "de facto" part is about the preconditions of the bet, to define what is Venezuela versus the US.

[prmoustache]

> Kidnapping the president of a country is very clear intent to exert control over a country.

I personnally view it more as a marketing stunt.