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?