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

191–200 of 289 posts

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

#191

Post by ceejayoz »

Manuel_D wrote: post #188
ceejayoz wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> A blockade is a unilateral action where a country seizes vessels that try to dock at the blockaded country.

Extensive evidence of this occurring has been repeatedly presented to you.

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

#192

Post by Manuel_D »

ceejayoz wrote: post #191
Manuel_D wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> A blockade is a unilateral action where a country seizes vessels that try to dock at the blockaded country. Extensive evidence of this occurring has been repeatedly presented to you.

No, it hasn't. The ships that were seized were flying false flags. They're subject to seizure regardless of the embargo.

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

#193

Post by jasonlotito »

Manuel_D wrote: post #22
WaxProlix wrote: post #6

What we're doing to the Cuban people with this blockade is criminal. I don't expect to see justice in my lifetime. What a miserable state of affairs.

The US is not enforcing a blockade, it's an embargo. The US and other countries are refusing to trade with Cuba, but plenty of other countries can and do trade with Cuba. Cuba is not entitled to trade with the US. A blockade is when a country stops traffic, from entering a country's ports. It's an act of war, and a totally different thing from an embargo.

Regardless, it's evil and should be treated as evil.

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

#194

Post by MattPalmer1086 »

Manuel_D wrote: post #190
MattPalmer1086 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Ok, a fair point, but ultimately in the context of what is happening to Cuba, a semantic one.

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

#195

Post by ceejayoz »

Manuel_D wrote: post #192
ceejayoz wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A blockade is a unilateral action where a country seizes vessels that try to dock at the blockaded country. Extensive evidence of this occurring has been repeatedly presented to you.

No, it hasn't. The ships that were seized were flying false flags. They're subject to seizure regardless of the embargo.

A thin layer of plausible deniability does not stop something from being a blockade.

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

#196

Post by Manuel_D »

ceejayoz wrote: post #195
Manuel_D wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it hasn't. The ships that were seized were flying false flags. They're subject to seizure regardless of the embargo.

A thin layer of plausible deniability does not stop something from being a blockade.

What stops it from being a blockade is the fact that ships that are legally registered continue to dock in Cuba.

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

#197

Post by morkalork »

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.

Rapist mentality

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

#198

Post by vrganj »

Manuel_D wrote: post #67
elmomle wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has been seizing fuel shipments en route to Cuba. What do you call that, if not a blockade?

They have been boarding ships that fly false flags. That is, they claim to be flying under the flag of some country. But when the US contacts that country to confirm that the ship is really registered there, the government of that country replies that the ship is not, in fact, registered. This is legal to do regardless of the embargo against Cuba. There are plenty of ships that move good and resources to Cuba that do…

"Legal" according to who's law?

The US? Then why does their law apply here?

International law? Like the ICC the US ignores? Or the climate agreements it breaks? Or the Geneva convention it runs afoul of?

Sure is convenient the US decided this one specific bit is to be taken extremely seriously.

Either way, it stinks of imperialism.

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

#199

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#200

Post by Manuel_D »

ceejayoz wrote: post #86
Manuel_D wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This ship was flying a false flag [1], which makes it legal for governments to seize regardless of the situation with Cuba. 1. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-we-know-oil-tanker-the-ski...

And the Ocean Mariner, that they didn't seize, and just escorted out of the area?

The Ocean Mariner departed Columbia with the stated destination of the Dominican Republic. But it started sailing towards Cuba. When it realized that it was being tracked by the USCG, it changed course towards the Dominican Republic.

We don't know with certainty what it's intent was, but it's likely it was trying to sell oil to Cuba surreptitiously, so as to avoid triggering retaliatory tariffs against Colombia.

The ship was free to dock and offload in Cuba, but that would trigger tarrifs against Colombian exports the US. Which is why it turned around when it realized it was spotted. All the coast guard did was ensure that the ship docked at its stated destination.

Post reply on HN