Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cuba says it has run out of fuel, blames U.S. embargo

upi.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 289 posts

Re: Cuba says it has run out of fuel, blames U.S. embargo

#171

Post by Manuel_D »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #136
Manuel_D wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No really, it's an embargo and a promise to tariff other countries that don't also embargo Cuba. An embargo is like boycotting a store. A blockade is like standing around the store with a bunch of batons promising to apprehend anyone who tries to shop at the store. They are not the same.

It feels like at this point you're splitting hairs on semantics when the effect is the same. What is Cuba to do about this non-blockade, embargo?

Cuba can meet the US's demands that they stop being a single party communist state and liberalize their economy.

Re: Cuba says it has run out of fuel, blames U.S. embargo

#173

Post by akramachamarei »

shimman wrote: post #78
imvgikviktbt wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Cuban government embargoes their own citizens. I don't understand why there isn't more criticism there.

Well mostly because of the direction actions of imperialism causing the needless deaths of babies but seeing how you seem to be pro-imperialism you probably see this as a good thing for American hegemony. Right up there with bombing school girls in Iran. It's just good diplomacy at that point right? Friendly reminder that the only people that majorly benefit from US foreign policy are the elites, most US citizens are…

I'm trying to figure out your reason for saying this. You seem to be an adept mind reader so please forgive my mental torpidity, but are you saying that Cuba does not do bad by it's citizens? Or that they do, but are justified? And where exactly does "imperialism" come into the equation?

Re: Cuba says it has run out of fuel, blames U.S. embargo

#174

Post by kyboren »

anigbrowl wrote: post #124
Manuel_D wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A boycott is a crime? The US has decided not the trade with Cuba, that's it. Cuba is still free to trade with any other country that's willing to trade with them.

5 minutes before this post you were saying it's an embargo, not a blockade. Now it's a 'boycott'. I don't trust people whose arguments constantly shift to meet the rhetorical needs of the moment. You don't like the Cuban government because they're communists, OK fine. I don't like the American policy of starving people for years on end while making high-minded sermons about the moral imperfections of the Cuban govern…

OK, then forget the sermons; how 'bout this?

The USA, like all serious countries, seeks to defend and advance its interests. Those interests include the suppression of self-declared enemies like Cuba and Iran, or seeking regime change so they cease being self-declared enemies of the US.

The irony of your claim that the US is starving the Cuban people is that in fact, the US could go that far and it would actually end the enmity from Cuba. But they haven't and they won't. It would harm other interests, possibly engender enmity elsewhere, and outside of total war Americans don't play the game that dirty.

But if people widely believe that's what the US is doing anyway, and they're "doing the time" without having actually having "done the crime", then considering that actually doing it would end the enmity from Cuba, it starts to look awfully attractive to Just Do It. So claiming that they are, when they actually aren't, only makes it more likely that they will.

Anyway, given that both ex-communist states China and Russia have demanded economic reforms from the recalcitrant Cuban regime--which have not been forthcoming--and that food is not embargoed, I think the impoverishment and hunger of the Cuban people can't credibly be blamed on "el bloqueo".

Cuba now imports their sugar--from the US of all places! You really think that it's American policy starving Cubans?

Re: Cuba says it has run out of fuel, blames U.S. embargo

#175

Post by Manuel_D »

anigbrowl wrote: post #124
Manuel_D wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A boycott is a crime? The US has decided not the trade with Cuba, that's it. Cuba is still free to trade with any other country that's willing to trade with them.

5 minutes before this post you were saying it's an embargo, not a blockade. Now it's a 'boycott'. I don't trust people whose arguments constantly shift to meet the rhetorical needs of the moment. You don't like the Cuban government because they're communists, OK fine. I don't like the American policy of starving people for years on end while making high-minded sermons about the moral imperfections of the Cuban govern…

I should have been more explicit that I was using boycott as an analogy to an embargo, in contrast to a blockade which unilaterally prevents countries from trading through military force.

An embargo is analogous to a boycott: you and your friends decide not to shop at a given store. But people who disagree and still want to shop have the ability to do so.

A blockade is like people standing around the store with batons and pepper spray, promising to apprehend anyone who tries to shop at the store.

The latter is obviously a much more forceful move. In fact, it's an act of war.

Re: Cuba says it has run out of fuel, blames U.S. embargo

#176

Post by akramachamarei »

iAMkenough wrote: post #91
Manuel_D wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Paying a tariff to a third-party government doesn’t mean the third-party government is obligated to stop pirating ships under the guise of “flying false flags.” It’s a shakedown, meant to harm Cubans.

What is the motive to harm Cubans?

Re: Cuba says it has run out of fuel, blames U.S. embargo

#177

Post by Manuel_D »

ceejayoz wrote: post #120
imvgikviktbt wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which countries have US forced embargoes on Cuba?

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/29/world/americas/cuba-russi... > The Trump administration had been enforcing what amounted to an oil blockade around Cuba since January, threatening nations that had been sending fuel to the country and, in one case, escorting a tanker heading toward Cuba away from the island. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Cuban_crisis > The United States began blocking oil tankers heading to Cub…

Your own link highlights the fact that this is not a blockade. The US threatened Mexico with tariffs if they didn't participate in the embargo against Cuba. Mexico decided that trade with Cuba isn't worth tariffs on Mexican exports to America. While the US is pressuring Mexico with the threat of tariffs it is ultimately Mexico's sovereign decision to stop sending oil to Cuba.

If Mexico decided to keep sending oil to Cuba, and the US started sizing ships carrying Mexican oil bound for Cuba that would be a blockade.

Re: Cuba says it has run out of fuel, blames U.S. embargo

#178

Post by ceejayoz »

Manuel_D wrote: post #177
ceejayoz wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/29/world/americas/cuba-russi... > The Trump administration had been enforcing what amounted to an oil blockade around Cuba since January, threatening nations that had been sending fuel to the country and, in one case, escorting a tanker heading toward Cuba away from the island. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Cuban_crisis > The United States began blocking oil tankers heading to Cub…

Your own link highlights the fact that this is not a blockade. The US threatened Mexico with tariffs if they didn't participate in the embargo against Cuba. Mexico decided that trade with Cuba isn't worth tariffs on Mexican exports to America. While the US is pressuring Mexico with the threat of tariffs it is ultimately Mexico's sovereign decision to stop sending oil to Cuba. If Mexico decided to keep sending oil to…

If I stand outside your house and threaten everyone who comes near with economic ruin, right after kidnapping your close friend and next-door neighbor using the world's most powerful military, you're gonna feel a little blockaded.

You seem very focused on some pedantic distinction here that just looks goofy from a practical standpoint. The US is intentionally cutting off oil supplies to Cuba. Call it whatever the fuck you want.

Re: Cuba says it has run out of fuel, blames U.S. embargo

#179

Post by Manuel_D »

ceejayoz wrote: post #178
Manuel_D wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your own link highlights the fact that this is not a blockade. The US threatened Mexico with tariffs if they didn't participate in the embargo against Cuba. Mexico decided that trade with Cuba isn't worth tariffs on Mexican exports to America. While the US is pressuring Mexico with the threat of tariffs it is ultimately Mexico's sovereign decision to stop sending oil to Cuba. If Mexico decided to keep sending oil to…

If I stand outside your house and threaten everyone who comes near with economic ruin, right after kidnapping your close friend and next-door neighbor using the world's most powerful military, you're gonna feel a little blockaded. You seem very focused on some pedantic distinction here that just looks goofy from a practical standpoint. The US is intentionally cutting off oil supplies to Cuba. Call it whatever the fuc…

Threatening to tax people who enter your house is still vastly different from physically apprehending anyone who tries to enter your house even if they're willing to pay the tax.

The difference between a blockade and an embargo is not small: the former is an act of war. If you really think this is no meaningful distinction between a blockade and an embargo, then how about you just correctly refer to it as an embargo? If there really is no meaningful distinction then why not just use the right word?

Re: Cuba says it has run out of fuel, blames U.S. embargo

#180

Post by Manuel_D »

dpark wrote: post #126
Manuel_D wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No really, it's an embargo and a promise to tariff other countries that don't also embargo Cuba. An embargo is like boycotting a store. A blockade is like standing around the store with a bunch of batons promising to apprehend anyone who tries to shop at the store. They are not the same.

Blocking tankers from other countries is a blockade. It’s in the name. It’s interesting to see you argue semantics because it implies you agree that the blockade is wrong.

But they're not blocking oil tankers from other countries, at least not ones that are operating legally. The only tankers that have been seized were flying false flags, which makes them legal to seize irrespective of the embargo.
Post reply on HN