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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
> 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.
1) I'm not aware of such a declaration coming from Cuba. Please give a link.
2) Are you sure it's USA's interests, not just a few very rich people from USA?
> 1) I'm not aware of such a declaration coming from Cuba. Please give a link.
> A speech by Raul at the University of Havana on 20 April [1959], however, attacked the United States as an "enemy of the Cuban revolution," in sharp contrast to Fidel's concurrent speeches during his visit to the United States.
> Cubans are admired for their spirit, for their deeds, for their courage, for their enthusiasm, because the Cubans are a people who, when they are told "it is necessary to meet to respond to aggression, to show the enemy of Cuba that the people are with the revolution, to show that the people have no fear, so that they can see that the people are ready to carry out their pledge of "homeland or death"!" (SHOUTS)
> And that is also our position on Laos, and North Vietnam, and South Vietnam. (Applause) We are a small nation, not too far from the shores of the imperialist homeland. Our arms are eminently defensive. But our men, wholeheartedly, our revolutionary militants, our fighters, are prepared to fight the imperialists in any part of the world. (Applause) Our country is a small one; our territory could even be partially occupied by the enemy; but that would never mean a cessation of our resistance.
> But the world is big, and the imperialists are everywhere, and for the Cuban revolutionaries the field of battle against imperialism takes in the whole world. (Applause) Without boasting, without any kind of immodesty, that is how we Cuban revolutionaries understand our internationalist duty. That is the way our people understand their duty, because they realize that the enemy is one and indivisible; the one who attacks us along our shoes and on our land is the same who attacks the others. Hence we say and we declare that Cuban fighters can be counted on by the revolutionary movement in any corner of the earth. (Applause)
> The enemy had to be shown and the enemy had to be taught that there can be no fooling around with the people. The enemy had to be shown that there can be no fooling around with the revolution. [applause] The enemy had to be shown that a people cannot be offered with impunity, [applause] that a people cannot be threatened with impunity. [shouts of `No"] And this image, this image is what they dreamed of destroying, the image of what the people are, the true revolutionary people, the proletarian people, the working people, the peasant people, the combatant people, the student people. [prolonged applause, indistinct chanting]
> Perhaps they thought the revolution has weakened and you can see what weakness of the revolution they have uncovered. [rhythmic applause, indistinct chanting] You can see what type of a revolution they have found. That is why it was necessary to wage this battle.
> As you know, over recent months our party and our people have been waging a tenacious and selfless struggle for exigency, to overcome inefficiencies, to overcome difficulties. This work was being done quietly and insistently for months. It could be said that our revolution, our people and our party were devoted to this work and to productive activities, especially the sugar harvest and the planting [of sugarcane], coping with the problems of the diseases of tobacco and sugarcane and the swine fever which mysteriously, mysteriously appeared almost simultaneously in our country. We were tackling various problems of our revolutionary process. We were struggling for development, struggling to improve everything within our material capabilities, and preparing for the congress of our party. We were involved in that task. But, why does this situation emerge? It is not a coincidence; it is not a coincidence.
> 2) Are you sure it's USA's interests, not just a few very rich people from USA?
First of all: This is just splitting hairs. A few very rich people from USA are in charge of US policy. And a few very rich people from Cuba and Iran are in charge of Cuban and Iranian policy.
When I say that Cuba and Iran are USA's enemies, I mean that in the geopolitcal sense. I don't mean that all citizens/residents of Cuba and Iran are enemies of all citizens of the USA.
Second: Significant fractions of both those countries' citizens are--unlike their few very rich policymakers--quite friendly to the US. This encourages US policy of regime change.
The misalignment of interests you point out cuts both ways.
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.
This comment shows that you do not understand the basic facts of the situation or are willing to lie about it. No one should engage you until you put in the bare minimum effort to at least know what you're talking about.