| Conquer is by no means a measure of the willingness of the conquered, in fact it is quite often the opposite. What conquer means is to attack an enemy and completely destroy their will/ability to fight AND make the conquered territories part/property of the attacking nation. Invade means to, well, invade, it doesn't have to be permanent or long term, it just simply means the attacking nations had troops inside the defending nation's borders. It doesn't imply any measure of security or completeness. The Germans invaded the Soviet Union but they never conquered it. Romans conquered many of the surrounding peoples but they were rarely loved and certainly not right after the invasion. A people can be conquered without having to accept the new rulers wholly if the conquered were defeated so re-soundly they lack a means to fight back anymore.
Neither term relies on the willingness of the attacked. Invading a nation is typically a prequel to it being conquered. That being said, the mission in Iraq was never to conquer Iraq, it was to invade, remove Saddam from office and establish a quasi-democratic government that would be friendly to the United States.
__________________
Please note that 98% of what I say is my opinion and/or my "version" of the facts. Most of what I say is rumor with little to no evidence to back it up, just something I picked up somewhere.
My City
|