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.
> 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?
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.
When you have the force of negotiations & ability to cause mass ruin to any nation that engages with Cuba, when Cuba is literally without power, I think the violence & damage being done makes the extreme grandstanding nonsense you've spent hours and hours cooking up in this thread look extremely extremely wicked and hollow.
Whatever point you have was lost on me. The minute technical difference doesn't make a ton of difference when there is so so so much massive human suffering and death going on. Your cloak of obsfuscation is deeply deeply insulting to what is happening, and you had a relentless ability to steal all the oxygen from the room & leave no room for discussion again and again. I despise low power plays like this and I am insulted at how your trampled over everyone and the death and suffering that is being created by the US denying anyone's access to Cuba.
As I've told others in this thread who purport to see no difference between an embargo and a blockade: if you really think there is no difference between a blockade and an embargo, then why not just correctly refer to this as an embargo?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Because of US economic pressure, yes. But that's not what a blockade is. A blockade is preventing trade through military force, physically seizing any ships that attempt to dock in the blockaded country.
> If the police prevent all grocery stores from selling you food and you starve, who do you blame: the police or the grocery stores?
Except that's not analogous to Cuba's situation. It's more like if the grocery store sells you food, the the grocery store is hit with a bigger tax bill. So the grocery store chooses not to sell you food.
The police preventing the grocery store from selling you food would be analogous to a blockade.
> It's more like if the grocery store sells you food, the the grocery store is hit with a bigger tax bill
And you also risk pissing off the mafia boss and will suffer the consequences elsewhere. It's not a simple choice to sell or not sell with no strings attached. Its one power drunk bully and everyone else.
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?
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.