[Manuel_D]

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.

[thunky]

> But it's cut off from oil because other countries refuse to trade with Cuba

Because of US pressure, yes?

If the police prevent all grocery stores from selling you food and you starve, who do you blame: the police or the grocery stores?

[Manuel_D]

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.

[thunky]

> 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.

[akramachamarei]

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?