I don't think I can treat you seriously after this, just so you know.
No, that's not an invasion. You're misusing the word by applying a definition that is incorrect in context. It's hard for me to explain this any better to you, if you want to live in a reality in which the United States invaded Chile, that's fine, but you're the only one. There's a very good reason why you won't find any references to a U.S. invasion of Chile - it's because there wasn't one. The definition you're using is applicable in different contexts, but not this one.
With that being said, I am very amused by the metal image of cockroaches invading your house, sneaking out of U.S.S. Couch, wearing little uniforms.
I'll say this one more time for posterity and leave you be, as funny as this exchange is. If you ever go on a camping trip with a friend, spend the night together in a tent and then have a little photoshoot in the wilderness, I ask you to do one thing. When you recount that story to your other friends, please don't tell them that you took your friend into the woods, slept with them and then shot them. If you do, they're ggoing to call the police and you'll immediately get arrested under suspicion of kidnapping, rape and murder.
I fully understand that words have multiple definitions - I'm a linguist, it is my trade. What I'm telling you, and what you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge, is that the *choice* of definition isn't up to you - it's context-dependent. You explaining what you originally meant doesn't make the statement any less silly - the right course of action was to correct yourself, which would've been accepted and it would've ended the exchange there. You instead chose to double down, which I consider clowning around. You're free to do so, just be aware of how that looks. The U.S. Still didn't invade Chile, which is a historical fact, but we're all a little bit dumber after going through this exercise.
Viva Chile!