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

201–210 of 289 posts

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

#201

Post by beepbooptheory »

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…

In your view, what does this mean? The distinction seems important to you, but I am not sure if you have really gotten into the meaningful difference. If it is definitely not a blockade, and that is important to say, why is it important? Does it mean we should view the situation differently? Does it imply more/less culpability to one party or the other? Should we have more hope around the humanitarian crisis? Or less?

Being direct about these kinds of questions would maybe help us understand where you are coming from here.

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

#202

Post by selivanovp »

vrganj wrote: post #29

What the US is doing to Cuba and has been doing to it for the past 70 years is a horrible crime. What a lack of confidence in their own system to not allow fair competition between Cuban socialism and American capitalism. It feels similar to Putin invading Ukraine because he didn't like the example of an EU-aligned country prospering next door and the populace starting to ask difficult questions.

>It feels similar to Putin invading Ukraine because he didn't like the example of an EU-aligned country prospering next door and the populace starting to ask difficult questions.

Ukraine was a much poorer state and is a much poorer state than Russia. Putin's invasion has nothing to do with "EU-aligning prosperity" that never happened, but with USA and EU overthrowing Ukrainian government and placing a puppet regime that turned Ukraine from a friendly-to-neutral state into an hostile one to Russia.

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

#203

Post by dpark »

Manuel_D wrote: post #97
ashg100 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are threatening all other countries with secondary sanctions: > "This dramatic worsening has a single cause: the genocidal energy blockade to which the United States subjects our country, threatening irrational tariffs against any nation that supplies us with fuel," Diaz-Canel wrote. Once a regime change is accomplished, Cuba will buy US energy and not Iranian or Russian. So go the plans at least.

The above commenter quite explicitly said that countries are being forced to buy resources from the US which is the exact opposite of an embargo.

You cannot be serious. Combining a shakedown with an embargo does not mean the embargo doesn’t happen.

The US is also not actually sending oil to Cuba so the scenario above is hypothetical, not real.

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

#204

Post by dpark »

palmotea wrote: post #122
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And blockading Venezuelan oil from reaching the island. Don't forget that part.

> And blockading Venezuelan oil from reaching the island. Don't forget that part. Is the new Venezuelan leader still trying to send Cuba oil? Or has she stopped that?

Shockingly they stopped sending oil after the US deposed their leadership and told them they better stop now “or else”.

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

#205

Post by selivanovp »

ch4s3 wrote: post #102
vrganj wrote: post #29

What the US is doing to Cuba and has been doing to it for the past 70 years is a horrible crime. What a lack of confidence in their own system to not allow fair competition between Cuban socialism and American capitalism. It feels similar to Putin invading Ukraine because he didn't like the example of an EU-aligned country prospering next door and the populace starting to ask difficult questions.

I can agree that the current de facto blockade of oil is an unwarranted act of aggression and that the embargo was bad policy but the embargo was hardly criminal. The premise of the embargo was that Cuba expropriated American property without compensation so congress was punishing the Cuban government in turn. Again, its bad policy but not really unusual or criminal per se. The embargo has also had a ton of carve out…

>He has even stated publicly it has nothing to do with NATO.

That's not true. It has always been about NATO absorbing Ukraine that is unacceptable to Russia. Putin warned about it since his Munich speech in 2007, that Georgia and Ukraine has to stay a military neutral countries or it'll result in a war with Russia. USA just decided that they may ignore it and do whatever they want anyway, pushing NATO in, after organizing "revolutions".

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

#206

Post by Manuel_D »

dpark wrote: post #203
Manuel_D wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The above commenter quite explicitly said that countries are being forced to buy resources from the US which is the exact opposite of an embargo.

You cannot be serious. Combining a shakedown with an embargo does not mean the embargo doesn’t happen. The US is also not actually sending oil to Cuba so the scenario above is hypothetical, not real.

Yes the embargo is real. The point is, what the above commenter wrote:

> The US starves anyone it does not like from natural resources and subsequently makes them buy US natural resources. It has done this to the EU, now it is trying to do it to China and Cuba

is the complete opposite of an embargo. The US is not making Cuba exclusively purchase oil from the US, it's prohibiting US oil produces from selling to Cuba.

Whatever speculation about what the US will do following some hypothetical regime change is irrelevant.

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

#207

Post by Manuel_D »

beepbooptheory wrote: post #201
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…

In your view, what does this mean? The distinction seems important to you, but I am not sure if you have really gotten into the meaningful difference. If it is definitely not a blockade, and that is important to say, why is it important? Does it mean we should view the situation differently? Does it imply more/less culpability to one party or the other? Should we have more hope around the humanitarian crisis? Or less…

A blockade is an act of war, carried out by military force. Saying the US is blockading Cuba is saying that the US and Cuba are at war. That alone is a pretty big reason to understand the difference between a blockade and an embargo.

The other important dimension is that countries participating in the embargo are choosing to participate in the embargo. This is distinct from a blockade which is done unilaterally. The Royal Navy didn't let ships into Germany ports during WW1 if they paid a tariff. No, they seized ships bound for Germany, because that was an actual blockade.

An embargo is when countries decline to trade with you on their own accord.

A blockade is when a country uses military force to physically stop other countries from trading with you, even if those other countries want to trade with you.

They're pretty substantially different.

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

#208

Post by dpark »

Manuel_D wrote: post #180
dpark wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They have been stationing coast guard ships as interceptors to stop other tankers from reaching Cuba. At least one tanker turned away in the face of the threat from the USCG.

The whole “false flags” argument is also a stretch given that these ships are flying false flags to avoid US sanctions. “We’re not embargoing, we’re just sanctioning” is kind of a nonsense statement when we seize sanctioned ships. The warrant to seize “Skipper” was issued because it was carrying sanctioned oil, not because of the flag it was flying.

This is an embargo, enforced with both economic and military strength. Again, the fact that you want to argue pointless semantics indicates you believe the embargo is not defensible.

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

#209

Post by ceejayoz »

Manuel_D wrote: post #196
ceejayoz wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That’s disingenuous. The blockade is specific to oil.

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

#210

Post by ceejayoz »

Manuel_D wrote: post #207
beepbooptheory wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your view, what does this mean? The distinction seems important to you, but I am not sure if you have really gotten into the meaningful difference. If it is definitely not a blockade, and that is important to say, why is it important? Does it mean we should view the situation differently? Does it imply more/less culpability to one party or the other? Should we have more hope around the humanitarian crisis? Or less…

A blockade is an act of war, carried out by military force. Saying the US is blockading Cuba is saying that the US and Cuba are at war. That alone is a pretty big reason to understand the difference between a blockade and an embargo. The other important dimension is that countries participating in the embargo are choosing to participate in the embargo. This is distinct from a blockade which is done unilaterally. The…

The US won’t even admit to being at war with Iran, and more explicit acts of war have clearly been committed there.

An act of war also isn’t the same as being in one. It takes two to tango, to some extent. Many acts of war do not result in one.

Act of war, no war: https://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/02/18/britain.marines/...

Post reply on HN