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.

▲

Manuel_D an hour ago | parent [-]

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.

▲

dpark an hour ago | parent [-]

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).

▲

Manuel_D 28 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

"The US isn't going to sell oil to Cuba."

"The US will be Cuba's exclusive supplier of oil."

Are these not polar opposites?

	▲	dpark 7 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		No. They are temporally distinct. The statement (true or not) is that the US is imposing blockade so that Cuba is forced to cut ties with other nations and depend solely on the US. The blockade state is an embargo. They would no longer be embargoed in the end state where they depend solely on the US.

▲

an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]