| |
| ▲ | elmomle 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The US has been seizing fuel shipments en route to Cuba. What do you call that, if not a blockade? | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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 don't get boarded. | | |
| ▲ | RobertoG 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | swat535 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
| |
| ▲ | mirzap 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I’m curious how it’s legal to size a ship in international waters under any circumstances? We have a word for that - piracy. | | |
| ▲ | voxic11 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Basically stateless ships don't have any international legal protections in international waters (at least according to the US's interpretation of the law). By the plain text of international law a state cannot commit piracy since piracy specifically only applies to private actors. > Piracy consists of any of the following acts:
(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft... https://www.un.org/depts/los/piracy/piracy_legal_framework.h... | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's legal because the ships were flying false flags. They claim that they're registered in country X, but when the US calls up country X they are told that the ship is not, in fact, registered there. Maritime law exists, and enforcing it is not an act of piracy. | | |
| ▲ | voxic11 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Maritime law alone isn't what justifies seizing of ships identified as stateless. Under maritime law ships properly registered to a state are only subject to that states laws when in international waters. But stateless ships can be subject to any states laws, however maritime law itself doesn't grant the right to seize even stateless ships. So the US seizing a stateless ship would have to justified under US law. |
|
| |
| ▲ | vrganj 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | "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. | |
| ▲ | j_maffe 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You're straight-up lying. Very shameful thing to do in defence of a heinous act. UN experts condemn US executive order imposing fuel blockade on Cuba
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2026/02/un-experts-c... | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | If you read the link closely, nowhere does it actually say the US is employing military force to stop ships from docking in Cuba - that's what a blockade is. The author of the piece is essentially trying to redefine "blockade" to mean "embargo". Again, the ships that actually were boarded were doing illegal things like flying false flags to try and continue to trade with Cuba without triggering retaliatory tariffs. | | |
| ▲ | skeledrew 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > continue to trade with Cuba without triggering retaliatory tariffs Why are there "retaliatory tariffs" in the first place? Why is the US forcefully inserting itself into affairs with which it should have no concern? Or are you saying it's the US's concern because... what? They're the world's watchdog and ultimate authority on right behavior? Other countries trading with the countries they've embargoed should rightly be penalized? | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Because the US wants to economically isolate Cuba to prod the single party authoritarian regime into liberalizing. It's fine if you think that's a bad thing. My only point is that it's not a blockade, it's an embargo. Countries have the option to trade with Cuba and live with the additional tariffs on their exports to the US. Under an actual blockade, that option doesn't exist. The Royal Navy didn't let ships into Germany during WW1 and slap their flag countries with tariffs. No, they boarded and seized the vessels because this was an actual blockade. |
| |
| ▲ | j_maffe 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | As I said in my other reply to you, if it looks like a duck and act like a duck, it's a duck. Call it a de-facto blockade if you have to. Being this pedantic only serves to protect the image of a heinous crime. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | But it doesn't look like a duck? There are ships docking and departing Cuba all the time. Your speaking as though Cuba is cut off from all maritime trade, which is not the case. Contrast that with actual blockades: like the UK blockading Germany in WW1. Even if a ship was legally registered, the Royal Navy would still board and seize it if it tried to dock on Germany. You're trying to call this a distinction without a difference, when the differences between and embargo and a blockade are stark. | | |
| ▲ | j_maffe 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | it is cut off from oil. it is effectively an oil-blockade, except for the one shipment the US allowed through, as reported by the media. Sorry, I'm done talking with someone who's this pedantic, it's not good for my blood pressure. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/29/us-russian-o... | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | But it's cut off from oil because other countries refuse to trade with Cuba. Not because the US Navy is blocking vessels (besides those flying false flags) from docking with Cuba. If you really believe there's no distinction between an embargo and a blockade then you should have just correctly used the term "embargo". This isn't pedantry, this is the difference between an act of war and an economic move. | | |
| ▲ | akramachamarei 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I would further note that, if one is looking for something to dislike about the embargoes, being a blockade isn't necessary. In particular, (classical) liberals should be disturbed by countries forcing private shippers to participate in "their" country's embargo. E.g., would the US attempt to stop and American company from trading with Cuba? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | imvgikviktbt 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The Cuban government embargoes their own citizens. I don't understand why there isn't more criticism there. | | |
| ▲ | shimman 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Well mostly because of the direction actions of imperialism causing the needless deaths of babies but seeing how you seem to be pro-imperialism you probably see this as a good thing for American hegemony. Right up there with bombing school girls in Iran. It's just good diplomacy at that point right? Friendly reminder that the only people that majorly benefit from US foreign policy are the elites, most US citizens are left with a more dangerous world where they suffer against backlash, terrorism, and degrading life services. | | |
| ▲ | akramachamarei 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm trying to figure out your reason for saying this. You seem to be an adept mind reader so please forgive my mental torpidity, but are you saying that Cuba does not do bad by it's citizens? Or that they do, but are justified? And where exactly does "imperialism" come into the equation? | |
| ▲ | imvgikviktbt 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What does US imperialism have anything to do with the fact that the Cuban government refuses to allow their citizens to buy and sell goods freely? | | |
| ▲ | OutOfHere 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Even the US government doesn't allow its citizens to trade freely, so what nonsense are you complaining about... | | |
| ▲ | akramachamarei 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Serious posts are generally preferred on HackerNews, but jokes can be okay if they're funny. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | ASalazarMX 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > The US is not enforcing a blockade, it's an embargo. Oh, so USA is only forcing their trade partners to embargo Cuba! That makes thing better, right? | | |
| ▲ | MSKJ 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's not about better or worse. I think it's important to understand the actual situation first so that we may argue the on the issue at hand. Embargo and blockade are at different levels of escalation. Now we can discuss that the embargo and advocate for de-escalation | |
| ▲ | imvgikviktbt 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Which countries have US forced embargoes on Cuba? | | |
| ▲ | j_maffe 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Well recently Mexico and Venezuela. The rest are forced through the 1996 Helms-Burton Act, the U.S. can penalize any foreign company that does business in Cuba. | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/29/world/americas/cuba-russi... > The Trump administration had been enforcing what amounted to an oil blockade around Cuba since January, threatening nations that had been sending fuel to the country and, in one case, escorting a tanker heading toward Cuba away from the island. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Cuban_crisis > The United States began blocking oil tankers heading to Cuba in February 2026, targeting companies such as the Mexican state-owned Pemex and threatening the responsible countries with tariffs should they resist. > After the ousting of Maduro, the United States began increasing its pressure on Mexico to reduce its oil sales to Cuba with President Donald Trump threatening tariffs against any country supplying Cuba with oil. Mexico temporarily halted shipments of oil to Cuba by 27 January and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said that the decision to halt oil deliveries was "a sovereign decision". | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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 Cuba, and the US started sizing ships carrying Mexican oil bound for Cuba that would be a blockade. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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 fuck you want. | | |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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 there really is no meaningful distinction then why not just use the right word? | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > 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. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > 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. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | No, it hasn't. The ships that were seized were flying false flags. They're subject to seizure regardless of the embargo. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | A thin layer of plausible deniability does not stop something from being a blockade. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | What stops it from being a blockade is the fact that ships that are legally registered continue to dock in Cuba. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz an hour ago | parent [-] | | That’s disingenuous. The blockade is specific to oil. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 27 minutes ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 13 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > 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. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 8 minutes ago | parent [-] | | 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 and surreptitiously sell oil. 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | beepbooptheory an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D an hour ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | anigbrowl 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Right and there's no wars in Ukraine or Iran, they're 'special military operations' or 'excursions.' | |
| ▲ | Someone 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | FTA: “U.S. President Donald Trump resumed ramping up a six-decade-old American ecomonic embargo on Cuba in January after cutting off its main supply of oil from Venezuela and threatening sanctions on Mexico, its second largest supply, and any other country that provided oil to the island.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Cuban_crisis: “ The United States began blocking oil tankers heading to Cuba in February 2026, targeting companies such as the Mexican state-owned Pemex and threatening the responsible countries with tariffs should they resist. […] On 29 January 2026, Executive Order 14380 was signed and entered into force on 30 January, declaring a national emergency in US and authorizing the imposition of additional tariffs on imports into the United States from countries that directly or indirectly supply oil to Cuba.” That’s a bit more than an embargo. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | No really, it's an embargo and a promise to tariff other countries that don't also embargo Cuba. An embargo is like boycotting a store. A blockade is like standing around the store with a bunch of batons promising to apprehend anyone who tries to shop at the store. They are not the same. | | |
| ▲ | dpark 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | dpark an hour ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
| |
| ▲ | cwillu 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The use of tools such as embargoes and threats of economic sanctions to prevent the flow of goods in and out of a set of ports needs to have a name, and “blockade” is as good as any other. | |
| ▲ | j_maffe 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | They can beat around the bush to pretend what is effectively a blockade to be anything but a blockade. Call it a de-facto blockade if you have to. You're using technicality as a crutch. Edit: corrected it to blockade | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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 to decry what the US is doing to Cuba, go ahead. But it is an embargo not a blockade. | | |
| ▲ | dpark 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Literally they are blocking tankers from other countries. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | dpark 39 minutes ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
| |
| ▲ | 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | j_maffe 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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 act of war where a country physically stops vessels from entering port in the target of the blockade. There is no choice in a blockade, the country enforcing the blockade is acting unilaterally If you really think this is a distinction without a difference, then you could've just used the word "embargo" and avoided this exchange. But you didn't, you chose to call it a blockade, which is incorrect. | | |
| ▲ | MattPalmer1086 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | MattPalmer1086 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ok, a fair point, but ultimately in the context of what is happening to Cuba, a semantic one. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | JKCalhoun 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It feels like at this point you're splitting hairs on semantics when the effect is the same. What is Cuba to do about this non-blockade, embargo? | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Cuba can meet the US's demands that they stop being a single party communist state and liberalize their economy. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/12/world/americas/venezuela-... > The oil tanker seized by the United States off the coast of Venezuela this week was part of the Venezuelan government’s effort to support Cuba, according to documents and people inside the Venezuelan oil industry. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/20/world/americas/cuba-oil-b... > Three days later, the U.S. Coast Guard intercepted a tanker full of Colombian fuel oil en route to Cuba that had gotten within 70 miles of the island, the data showed. > The U.S. government called its 1962 policy a “quarantine” to avoid using the word “blockade,” which legally could be interpreted as an act of war. The Trump administration has also avoided using the word “blockade.” The distinction seems to be mostly word games at this point. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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... | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | And the Ocean Mariner, that they didn't seize, and just escorted out of the area? | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D an hour ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
| |
| ▲ | lostlogin 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | When the Russian shadow fleet exports oil this way, the US turns a blind eye | | | |
| ▲ | vrganj 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | janderson215 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This is a ridiculous false equivalence and muddies the waters of any serious dissent. | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Do you not realize that flying a false flag is illegal? It's the maritime equivalent of putting a fake license plate on your car. I'm seriously baffled at your attempt to equate boarding ships that are breaking maritime law with saying women invite rape by the way they dress. | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | ricardobeat 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Trump instituted tariffs on any country that sells oil to Cuba, it is effectively a blockade. It’s also in fact preventing ships carrying oil to reach the island, using their military, I wonder if there is a term for that. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | No - they can just pay the tariff and continue to trade. The ships being seized are doing things like flying false flags, to try and trade with Cuba without paying tariffs. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | What legal justification could there possibly be for imposing a tarrif on Mexico-Cuba trade that doesn't involve the US at any point? What would your reaction be if China imposed tariffs on US-Canadian border crossings and seized American ships over it? | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | A tariff is a tax that a country imposes on goods entering its borders. A country can impose a tariff on any country, at any time, for whatever reason (unless they've signed free trade agreements obligating them to refrain from imposing tariffs). > What would your reaction be if China imposed tariffs on US-Canadian border crossings and seized American ships over it? Again, the ships in being sized were flying false flags, which is illegal. If American ships decided to take this criminal act, then China is justified in enforcing the law. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > A tariff is a tax that a country imposes on goods entering its borders. Yes. And that is not what happens here! None of this oil is entering the US at all! | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Correct. But the point remains, the US is free to impose a tariff on countries that sell oil to Cuba. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | So it's not "a tax that a country imposes on goods entering its borders" now? | | |
| ▲ | baseballdork 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It seems fairly obvious that what happens is a tariff is applied to the items entering the US and not the oil going to Cuba. If you trade oil with cuba, then any trade with the US will be subject to the tariff. | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | No, a tariff is indeed a tax a country imposes on goods entering its borders. I'm not sure what in my comment you think contradicts this. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The ships being seized are doing things like flying false flags, to try and trade with Cuba without paying tariffs. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, they fly false flags to avoid triggering retaliatory tariffs. If country X sells oil to Cuba than country X's goods being imported to the the US will be subject to additional tariffs. I can see how this wording makes it sound like the US is charging a tariff on the oil entering Cuba, but that is not the case. The tariff in that quote is referring to the tariffs the US is promising to place on counties that don't participate in the embargo. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | vrganj 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | "Criminal" according to who? 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. | | |
| ▲ | lostlogin 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > International law? The one the US constantly chooses to ignore? It’s a little less two faced now though, as this administration ignores US laws too. |
|
| |
| ▲ | ibejoeb 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Good question, and you'd be right that in that situation it wouldn't hold up to scrutiny. That's not what's going on, though. Instead, the tariff applies to trades American trade when it is determined that the other party is also trading with Cuba. The parent is correct; Mexico, or any other country, is free to trade with Cuba, but then it will be subject to American tariffs on American trade. It has to make the choice. There is certainly pressure, but it's on independent states to decide. | |
| ▲ | defen 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If we're imagining a world where the US can't stop China from doing that, I'd probably go on the internet and complain about it. | |
| ▲ | shimman 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It always boils down to the US ignoring international trade and laws in their favor. As you said there is nothing illegal about two countries trading. The idea the US should have a say is deeply undemocratic and frankly anti-human as well, but that's just the US for you. This podcast does a great job on highlighting how the media plays its role in justifying the imperialism too: https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/shadow-fleets-sanctions-w... |
| |
| ▲ | iAMkenough 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | | | |
| ▲ | luizfzs 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Trade in US Dollars with other countries need to go through US banks, which can be subject to prohibitions, which can be done by political motivation. Also, the issue of the PetroDollar complicates things internationally as well. US throws a tantrum when small countries (or countries it can bully) trade Oil in other currencies. That is very important to keep themselves relevant and with some control over international trades. Yet another aspect is that if any goods, regardless of who is selling it, contains more than 10% of components, technology, produced by a US company, such seller requires an US Export license to trade such goods with Cuba. So it's not as simple as that. https://shippingsolutionssoftware.com/blog/products-subject-... |
|
| |
| ▲ | jasonlotito 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Regardless, it's evil and should be treated as evil. | |
| ▲ | legitster 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > U.S. President Donald Trump resumed ramping up a six-decade-old American ecomonic embargo on Cuba in January after cutting off its main supply of oil from Venezuela and threatening sanctions on Mexico, its second largest supply, and any other country that provided oil to the island. It has taken on distinctly more "blockade-like" attributes. | |
| ▲ | georgemcbay 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > The US is not enforcing a blockade, it's an embargo. ...just like the war in Iran isn't a war. These important reminders brought to you by the Ministry of Truth. | |
| ▲ | dyauspitr 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The US has pressured other countries to stop trading with Cuba. That’s effectively a blockade. |
|
| |
| ▲ | mitthrowaway2 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yet you guys were happy to open up to trade with China in 1972. Why the double standard? | | |
| ▲ | smallmancontrov 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | So that the Capitalists could sell the industrial base of the United States of America to the Communist Party of China for 30 pieces of silver. Cuba didn't have the ability to break the back of American labor. China did. That's the difference. | | |
| ▲ | xp84 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I’m not even left wing but I have to admit I’m pretty sure this is a correct analysis. |
|
| |
| ▲ | Arodex 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If collective punishment is the norm you want to apply, that rule may bite you back sooner than you think... | |
| ▲ | mothballed 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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 time the die was cast. | |
| ▲ | pasquinelli 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | doesn't surviving a 70 year embargo make you question how bad the communists really are? | | |
| ▲ | daedrdev 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Cuba let 20% of the population leave in 2020-24 so that they would have fewer dissenters in the country who might overthrow the government. Thats a higher rate of population per year than the peak of the great Irish famine | | |
| ▲ | pasquinelli 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | if they don't let people leave to prevent total state collapse then they're starving their own people (by means of the american trade embargo); if they do let people leave, it's to tighten their stranglehold on the country. | | |
| ▲ | kyboren 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Any way you slice it, such an exodus is never the sign of a well-managed country. |
| |
| ▲ | mothballed 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Where does one go with one of the weakest passports in the world, no assets, no family connections, and probably only sporadically any skills capable of getting a work visa? I need to get on speed dial whatever immigration lawyer those people had. | | |
| ▲ | daedrdev 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I can't find the article but I did read a few years ago most had left to either Mexico or the US. The US had a very favorable program for cubans to enter, work and stay in the country under the Biden admin. The cuban government via National Office of Statistics and Information admitted it fell by at least 10%, but have not done a census in 15 years. Independent estimates range form 18-24%. |
|
| |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | No. The fact that the Cuban authorities s decided that further impoverishing Cuba is worth preserving their single-party communist regime demonstrates that it is indeed a bad government. | | |
| ▲ | pasquinelli 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | after a failed invasion to overthrow the cuban government, we spent a lifetime doing covert operations and using our economic dominance to try to starve cuba to death, but the problem is that cuba has resisted. i wonder if that'll still be your tune if america finds itself on the receiving end of that kind of treatment. | |
| ▲ | vrganj 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's not the Cuban authorities that are impoverishing Cuba, that's just victim blaming. It is American imperialism, at least stand by your crimes. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | A boycott is a crime? The US has decided not the trade with Cuba, that's it. Cuba is still free to trade with any other country that's willing to trade with them. | | |
| ▲ | anigbrowl 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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 government. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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 batons and pepper spray, promising to apprehend anyone who tries to shop at the store. The latter is obviously a much more forceful move. In fact, it's an act of war. | | |
| ▲ | kyboren 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
| |
| ▲ | kyboren 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | OK, then forget the sermons; how 'bout this? The USA, like all serious countries, seeks to defend and advance its interests. Those interests include the suppression of self-declared enemies like Cuba and Iran, or seeking regime change so they cease being self-declared enemies of the US. The irony of your claim that the US is starving the Cuban people is that in fact, the US could go that far and it would actually end the enmity from Cuba. But they haven't and they won't. It would harm other interests, possibly engender enmity elsewhere, and outside of total war Americans don't play the game that dirty. But if people widely believe that's what the US is doing anyway, and they're "doing the time" without having actually having "done the crime", then considering that actually doing it would end the enmity from Cuba, it starts to look awfully attractive to Just Do It. So claiming that they are, when they actually aren't, only makes it more likely that they will. Anyway, given that both ex-communist states China and Russia have demanded economic reforms from the recalcitrant Cuban regime--which have not been forthcoming--and that food is not embargoed, I think the impoverishment and hunger of the Cuban people can't credibly be blamed on "el bloqueo". Cuba now imports their sugar--from the US of all places! You really think that it's American policy starving Cubans? |
| |
| ▲ | pasquinelli 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | i remember during covid china sent its vaccine to cuba and america captured it and siezed it. that's why cuba developed their own vaccines. another point on the "maybe the cuban communist party isn't so bad" tally. | |
| ▲ | vrganj 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's not a boycott. It's an embargo. The US is boarding and seizing boats with supplies headed for Cuba. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/12/world/americas/venezuela-... | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | These ships were flying false flags, which is a violation of maritime law. It's legal to board and size ships doing this, regardless of embargos. | | |
| ▲ | lostlogin 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yet when Russia plays games with false flags and oil exports, American is too scared to act. Even with Russia adding Iranian attacks on US bases, the US remains quiet. It’s a strange world. | | | |
| ▲ | pasquinelli 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | one wonders why |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | righthand 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Right because if we trade with the communists near us then people will start to realize that our government is made up of communism for corporations. Which is totally fine because we hide those communist ideas under “capitalism”. Let’s encourage the fed to buy more Intel shares and bailout big business (banks and PPP giveaways) but continue to wag the finger at communism in Cuba because it’s “bad” and the 1950s boomers got red scared! |
|
