For me personally, it's the statement of fact without sources. This is the era of AI and social disinformation. "Trust me, bro!" carries even less weight now than ever.
Don't get me wrong, even though Venezuela doesn't deserve US aggression, Maduro is still a shady conman and I wouldn't put it past him to sell out his country.
But I won't believe it just because someone said it was true.
It'd be nice, but I can't see a country that has a Hague Invasion Plan to prevent any American from ever being tried by the ICC just, you know, giving that up.
It might be the case that war should be illegal, but it isn't. International law delineates just and unjust conflict, and when talking about real-world war rather than theoreticals, they must be viewed in light of existing laws, not what we want the laws to be.
No foreign forces occupied territory of the United States, which would be the criteria for an invasion.
These are all well-established definitions in the legality of war.
Edit- and before we take the pacifist "there should be no legal war" approach, that may be so, but we live in a world where international law delineates just and unjust war, and applies strict definitions to do so, so when discussing conflict happening in the real world and not theoretically, it must be done within the confines of its practical definitions.
One is strike operations on individual vessels operating in international waters and, while illegal and reprehensible, doesn't even come close to being equivalent to an amphibious landing invasion of a nation utilizing all branches of the US military.
This is America's 1938 moment. The nations of the world need to push back hard.