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

211–220 of 289 posts

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

#211

Post by dpark »

Manuel_D wrote: post #206
dpark wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Are you only here to nitpick semantics?

The statement clearly is not that allowing Cuba to buy resources from the US would be an embargo. The statement is that the US is embargoing (de facto blockading) Cuba today in order to force them to buy from the US tomorrow.

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

#212

Post by dpark »

Manuel_D wrote: post #182
dpark wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So if Russia puts a Russian flag on a tanker and sails it to Cuba, do you suppose that the USGC will allow it to land?

Oh, wait. Those ships are all sanctioned so would be seized. Interesting conundrum.

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

#213

Post by Manuel_D »

dpark wrote: post #211
Manuel_D wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Are you only here to nitpick semantics? The statement clearly is not that allowing Cuba to buy resources from the US would be an embargo. The statement is that the US is embargoing (de facto blockading) Cuba today in order to force them to buy from the US tomorrow .

In case you didn't notice, this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48138329 is a different user than the comment I first responded to.

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

#214

Post by Manuel_D »

ceejayoz wrote: post #209
Manuel_D wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ships carrying oil are free to dock in Cuba. But whatever country is selling that oil will be subject to tariffs in the US.

You can call it a blockade a thousand times, that doesn't make it true.

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

#215

Post by ceejayoz »

Manuel_D wrote: post #214
ceejayoz wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Ships carrying oil are free to dock in Cuba. But whatever country is selling that oil will be subject to tariffs in the US. You can call it a blockade a thousand times, that doesn't make it true.

> Ships carrying oil are free to dock in Cuba.

You know this isn’t true, but continue to assert it. I gave you a link to a non-false flag tanker that was forced away by the Coast Guard and escorted out for several days.

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

#216

Post by Manuel_D »

ceejayoz wrote: post #215
Manuel_D wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ships carrying oil are free to dock in Cuba. But whatever country is selling that oil will be subject to tariffs in the US. You can call it a blockade a thousand times, that doesn't make it true.

> Ships carrying oil are free to dock in Cuba. You know this isn’t true, but continue to assert it. I gave you a link to a non-false flag tanker that was forced away by the Coast Guard and escorted out for several days.

As I explained in my reply, that tanker was not forced away. It lied and said it was headed to the Dominican Republic, but tried to sail to Cuba - presumably to surreptitiously sell oil without triggering retaliatory tariffs. When it realized it was being followed by the Coast Guard, it turned around and sailed to its stated destination.

The ship could have made port in Cuba and unloaded it's oil. But then Colombia would be hit with tariffs. The threat of tariffs made the ship turn around on its own volition, not because the coast guard deployed force to stop the ship.

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

#217

Post by dpark »

Manuel_D wrote: post #213
dpark wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you only here to nitpick semantics? The statement clearly is not that allowing Cuba to buy resources from the US would be an embargo. The statement is that the US is embargoing (de facto blockading) Cuba today in order to force them to buy from the US tomorrow .

In case you didn't notice, this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48138329 is a different user than the comment I first responded to.

I saw where you insisted that instituting a blockade to force buying from the US wouldn’t be an embargo. And then I saw where you reiterated that again because you’re just nitpicking definitions.

Me recapping your chain of comments and to be low value for both of us, though. My point stands. Instituting an embargo and lifting it later once objectives are achieved doesn’t mean an embargo didn’t happen. “Yes embargo” and “No embargo” can both be true at different times. And “yes embargo” can be used to force a specific “no embargo” outcome (such as hypothetically depending on the US for resources).

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

#218

Post by [deleted] »

dpark wrote: post #217
Manuel_D wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In case you didn't notice, this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48138329 is a different user than the comment I first responded to.

I saw where you insisted that instituting a blockade to force buying from the US wouldn’t be an embargo. And then I saw where you reiterated that again because you’re just nitpicking definitions. Me recapping your chain of comments and to be low value for both of us, though. My point stands. Instituting an embargo and lifting it later once objectives are achieved doesn’t mean an embargo didn’t happen. “Yes embargo” a…

[deleted]

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

#219

Post by iAMkenough »

akramachamarei wrote: post #176
iAMkenough wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You’d have to ask them. Also curious about US motive behind blowing up fishing boats and school children.

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

#220

Post by Manuel_D »

dpark wrote: post #208
Manuel_D wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> At least one tanker turned away in the face of the threat from the USCG.

If you're talking about the Ocean Mariner, it was not threatened by the USCG. The ship was carrying Colombian oil, and if it docked in Cuba that would trigger tariffs on Colombian imports.

So the ship lied and said it was bound for the Dominican Republic and tried to sneak into Cuba. When it realized it was spotted by the coast guard, it turned towards its stated destination because they knew they were being watched and if they docked in Cuba then Colombia would be hit with tariffs.

If the ship continued to sail to Cuba and the coast guard sized the ship that would be a blockade.

> 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.

Nowhere did I argue that it isn't an embargo. I've been repeatedly explaining that it is an embargo, rather than a blockade. If you think I'm denying that this is an embargo, you've far off the mark of what I've been saying in this thread

Post reply on HN