> 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 29 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 15 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 10 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. The threat of tariffs made the ship turn around on its own volition, not because the coast guard deployed force to stop the ship.

▲

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.

	▲	ceejayoz an hour ago \| parent [-]
		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/...