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

181–190 of 289 posts

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

#181

Post by akramachamarei »

j_maffe wrote: post #149
WarmWash wrote: post #84

There is a point where you are so weak, and your opponent is strong, that the best outcome for everyone on the whole is for you to just capitulate. Surrender. I don't know if there is something I am missing, but to me, the "bad guy" in a situation like this is the one holding onto power at everyone else's (extreme) expense, throwing their own team into the fire to keep their power in place as long as possible.

Great victim blaming

We should really be thinking of the situation in terms of individuals instead of nations. Whatever capitulation we're talking about, there's no reason to assume that the Cuban governments shares the same opinions as Cubans. The actions and interests of the government and Cubans are separate, and incur separate blameworthiness.

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

#182

Post by Manuel_D »

dpark wrote: post #128
Manuel_D wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a blockade. Any country around the world is free to sail their cargo ships to Cuba and trade with Cubans. This will in turn, trigger tariffs against them in the US, but if countries really want to trade with Cuba they can. A blockade is carried out through military force. Under a blockade ships are physically prevented from docking with the blockaded country, even if they're legally registered. If you want t…

Literally they are blocking tankers from other countries.

No, they are not blocking legally registered tankers from other countries. The handful of boarded ships were boarded because they were flying false flags, which is illegal and opens them up to being seized regardless of the embargo.

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

#183

Post by kyboren »

Manuel_D wrote: post #175
anigbrowl wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 baton…

But the US also limits their patronage of other businesses whose owners shop at the store. And because the US is such a rich and great customer, while Cuba is broke and their shop has empty shelves, other business owners generally avoid going to CubaMart.

It's not a blockade, and everyone involved is simply exercising their sovereign rights. But it is mildly coercive. Which, obviously, is the whole point.

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

#184

Post by MattPalmer1086 »

Manuel_D wrote: post #169
j_maffe wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is effectively an oil blockade, and it's illegal under international law. Being this pedantic about how the US justifies its actions shows zero understanding for how these things tend to be done. The purpose of a system is what it does.

No, it's not effectively an oil blockade. Countries have the option to trade with Cuba and risk whatever retaliatory tariffs the US promises to put on countries that ship oil to Cuba. These counties choose to refrain from trade with Cuba because the value they get out of exporting goods to the US exceeds the value of trade with Cuba. But if they decided otherwise, that option is available to them. A blockade is an ac…

And if pretty much any other country in the world threatened tariffs if they traded, most countries would be "meh". The US is the global superpower and a vast player economically.

Pretending that what the US does here is the same as if any other country did it is disengenuous.

It's an effective blockade.

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

#185

Post by ceejayoz »

Manuel_D wrote: post #179
ceejayoz wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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?

I think you're very focused on finding reasons the blockade isn't one, to the point of some severe contortions. I'm not sure why you think the US is leery of acts of war; we've committed a bunch in the last year, including multiple preemptive decapatation strikes of world leaders.

You think it's an embargo; I (and much of the world) think it's a blockade. Whoever's right, this'd be deeply shitty antisocial behavior if you did it to your neighbor, and likely to lead to blows.

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

#186

Post by akramachamarei »

reillyse wrote: post #99
some_random wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, refusing to trade with an adversary nation isn't bullying.

It's been established many times in this thread that the US is not just refusing to trade but 1) Forcing trading partners to also not trade 2) Physically boarding and seizing ships that are attempting to go to the island with cargos of oil. Yet you just keep repeating the stuff about it being just about not trading with the US.

On the contrary, this statement about force and boarding has been repeated and also countered numerous times. For one, I've yet to see the "forced" claim elaborated. Leveraging retaliatory tariffs is not an act of force--that is the only "force" action I've seen mentioned so far. Furthermore, the boarding and seizing has been credibly described as a police action to enforce false flag laws, i.e. maritime impersonation.

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

#187

Post by Manuel_D »

kyboren wrote: post #183
Manuel_D wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 baton…

But the US also limits their patronage of other businesses whose owners shop at the store. And because the US is such a rich and great customer, while Cuba is broke and their shop has empty shelves, other business owners generally avoid going to CubaMart. It's not a blockade, and everyone involved is simply exercising their sovereign rights. But it is mildly coercive. Which, obviously, is the whole point.

Right, but the point is, it's not a blockade. Loads of people are calling it a blockade, and correcting that piece of misinformation is the root of this whole thread.

If people want to say that the embargo is coercive and bad, that's fine.

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

#188

Post by Manuel_D »

ceejayoz wrote: post #185
Manuel_D wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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? I think you're very focused on finding reasons the blockade isn't one, to the point of some severe contortions. I'm not sure why you think the US is leery of acts of war; we've committed a bunch in the last year, including multiple preemptive decapatation strikes of w…

The severe contortions are on the end of people trying to call this a blockade. These terms have long established definitions. A blockade is a unilateral action where a country seizes vessels that try to dock at the blockaded country. It's an act of war.

This is not what's happening in Cuba. Countries are deciding to participate in the embargo because they don't want to have their exports to the US tariffed. Emphasis on decided. These countries have the option to continue trading with Cuba and having their imports tariffed.

A blockade does not afford other countries that option. The Royal Navy seized any and all vessels bound to Germany during WW1. There was no option to simply accept a tariff and continue trading with Germany. Because this was a blockade not an embargo.

> we've committed a bunch in the last year, including multiple preemptive decapatation strikes of world leaders.

Correct, like a blockade, those are indeed acts of war. If the US was bombing Cuba, then the US would indeed be at war with Cuba. But that's not happening in Cuba.

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

#189

Post by swat535 »

Manuel_D wrote: post #130
RobertoG wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment makes it look like is a police action instead of interfering in the business of third countries in international waters, with the express goal of causing economic pain.

The two are not mutually exclusive: The US embargo is done with the goal of economically hampering Cuba. The ships that try to skirt their home countries' participation in the embargo by flying false flags are being subject to police action.

I think this attitude is why EU and other nations have started to realize that doing business with US and relying on them is not a good idea.

United States is still under the impression that it's post WWII era..

The good news is that American's grip is slipping and will no longer be able to exert the same level of power in the next decade or so.

You're right, no one is entitled to trade wit US but the US is not entitled to trade with the rest of the world either, including China, Russia, Europe and Middle East.

I think Americans should realize that the post WII era is well passed and "strong arming" nations isn't going to work.

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

#190

Post by Manuel_D »

MattPalmer1086 wrote: post #184
Manuel_D wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not effectively an oil blockade. Countries have the option to trade with Cuba and risk whatever retaliatory tariffs the US promises to put on countries that ship oil to Cuba. These counties choose to refrain from trade with Cuba because the value they get out of exporting goods to the US exceeds the value of trade with Cuba. But if they decided otherwise, that option is available to them. A blockade is an ac…

And if pretty much any other country in the world threatened tariffs if they traded, most countries would be "meh". The US is the global superpower and a vast player economically. Pretending that what the US does here is the same as if any other country did it is disengenuous. It's an effective blockade.

No doubt that America's embargo is more powerful because it's one of the largest import markets in the world. I'm not pretending that an American embargo is no more impactful than a smaller country carrying out an embargo. But it's unambiguously an embargo, not a blockade. These terms have long established definitions. A blockade is an act of war, carried out with military force. An embargo does not become a blockade by virtue of the fact that the country doing the embargo had a big economy.

If you think the embargo is bad, that's fine. What I'm objecting to is people calling it a blockade.

Post reply on HN