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

261–270 of 289 posts

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

#261

Post by pasquinelli »

palmotea wrote: post #255
pasquinelli wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i'd love to see america "manage" the conditions america has imposed on cuba.

> i'd love to see america "manage" the conditions america has imposed on cuba. The single biggest problem would be rebuilding the US manufacturing base. Once that happens, the US would be fine. America's probably capable of autarky: it's got the natural resources, population size, and technology.

so we would manage the conditions we've imposed on cuba by just simply not having those conditions.

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

#262

Post by palmotea »

pasquinelli wrote: post #261
palmotea wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> i'd love to see america "manage" the conditions america has imposed on cuba. The single biggest problem would be rebuilding the US manufacturing base. Once that happens, the US would be fine. America's probably capable of autarky: it's got the natural resources, population size, and technology.

so we would manage the conditions we've imposed on cuba by just simply not having those conditions.

> so we would manage the conditions we've imposed on cuba by just simply not having those conditions.

The US didn't impose the condition of being a resource-poor island on Cuba, nor did it impose the condition of economic mismanagement on it (apparently so bad even the Soviets complained about it). The US imposed the condition of a trade embargo, and that's it.

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

#263

Post by beepbooptheory »

palmotea wrote: post #258
phpnode wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are quibbling over minor semantics. Is the US preventing most oil from reaching Cuba or not?

> You are quibbling over minor semantics. You all are. Why not just concede it's an embargo not a blockade and move on? > Is the US preventing most oil from reaching Cuba or not? Sometimes questions like that obscure more than they elucidate. If you're debating if a killing is murder or involuntary manslaughter, it doesn't prove your point to ask if the man is dead.

Ok but if it is a murder/involuntary manslaughter-esque distinction, why not just say that? I feel like I made it really easy to do that and wasn't couching it in an accusation or any kind of hyperbole.

Just, please, tell it to me straight, I'm a little slow. Is that what we are saying? That everyone is claiming murder, but actually it's more involuntary?

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

#264

Post by beepbooptheory »

Manuel_D wrote: post #248
phpnode wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are quibbling over minor semantics. Is the US preventing most oil from reaching Cuba or not?

The fact that oil imports are being curtailed by an embargo rather than a blockade is not minor semantics. The former is when countries voluntarily cease to trade with someone. The latter is when a country deploys its military to seize vessels trying to reach the blockade target. It's also an act of war. If people really think it's a minor semantics difference, then they should just be honest and correctly refer to t…

...so that is a 'no' to the question, right?

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

#265

Post by insane_dreamer »

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…

What right does the US have to do that?

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

#266

Post by insane_dreamer »

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.

> A blockade is when a country stops traffic, from entering a country's ports.

this is exactly what the US is doing

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

#267

Post by insane_dreamer »

marknutter wrote: post #76
deadbolt wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Communism must be absolutely incredible for such a small country to be such a threat to a superpower.

Would you tolerate a fascist country in your back yard?

> Would you tolerate a fascist country in your back yard?

do you even know anything about South American history?

the US literally installs fascists in those countries

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

#268

Post by pseudohadamard »

mothballed wrote: post #25
ReptileMan wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

In a vacuum sure, but the communists replaced Batista, who was arguably as bad or worse at the time of the revolution. In the long run they'd have probably been better under Batista because being America's bitch is better for the health of Caribbean nations than being the bitch of USSR/China and the enemy of America while you haul your goods home in a donkey cart like it's the 19th century. But it wasn't knowable at…

The situation was also something created by the US: After taking power, Castro visited the US to try and set up friendly relations with them. The US president refused to meet him, sending the VP (Nixon, ugh) instead and generally giving them the cold shoulder and squeezing Cuba more and more. Khrushchev saw the opportunity the US had handed him on a silver platter, and the rest is history.

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

#269

Post by TiredOfLife »

elmomle wrote: post #59
Manuel_D wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

The US has been seizing ships sanctioned by US and EU that fly false flags and transport russian and iranian oil

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

#270

Post by Manuel_D »

beepbooptheory wrote: post #264
Manuel_D wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that oil imports are being curtailed by an embargo rather than a blockade is not minor semantics. The former is when countries voluntarily cease to trade with someone. The latter is when a country deploys its military to seize vessels trying to reach the blockade target. It's also an act of war. If people really think it's a minor semantics difference, then they should just be honest and correctly refer to t…

...so that is a 'no' to the question, right?

No what? The US's embargo and threats to tariff countries that don't match this embargo is blocking most but not all oil bound for Cuba. Russia, for example, continues to trade with Cuba because it's willing to tolerate increase in tariffs (not that Russia is trading much with the US anyway).

If this were a blockade then the US would be boarding Russian oil tankers even if they're legally flagged as a Russian vessel.

If you really think the distinction between blockade and embargo is irrelevant then we can just acknowledge that it's an embargo, not a blockade, and move on.

Post reply on HN