Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by beepbooptheory 40 days ago
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.
1 comments
Manuel_D 40 days ago
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.

link
ceejayoz 40 days ago
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/...

link
beepbooptheory 40 days ago
Is the meaningful thing you are trying to get across here something like: "everyone is saying USA is doing something really bad, but in fact they are not"?

Or maybe more: "ok USA might have it a little out for Cuba, but remember, everyone else hates them too, otherwise they would be trading with them"?

link
Manuel_D 40 days ago
The meaningful thing is to understand the difference between a blockade and an embargo.

When people say that the US is blockading Cuba I'm not sure if they are genuinely misinformed and think that the US Navy and Coast Guard are physically apprehending any ships trying to dock in Cuba, or if they are just ignorant about the difference between a blockade and an embargo.

link
phpnode 40 days ago
You are quibbling over minor semantics. Is the US preventing most oil from reaching Cuba or not?
link
palmotea 40 days ago
> You are quibbling over minor semantics.

You all are. Why not just concede it's an embargo not a blockade and move on?

> Is the US preventing most oil from reaching Cuba or not?

Sometimes questions like that obscure more than they elucidate. If you're debating if a killing is murder or involuntary manslaughter, it doesn't prove your point to ask if the man is dead.

link
beepbooptheory 39 days ago
Ok but if it is a murder/involuntary manslaughter-esque distinction, why not just say that? I feel like I made it really easy to do that and wasn't couching it in an accusation or any kind of hyperbole.

Just, please, tell it to me straight, I'm a little slow. Is that what we are saying? That everyone is claiming murder, but actually it's more involuntary?

link
Manuel_D 40 days ago
The fact that oil imports are being curtailed by an embargo rather than a blockade is not minor semantics. The former is when countries voluntarily cease to trade with someone. The latter is when a country deploys its military to seize vessels trying to reach the blockade target. It's also an act of war.

If people really think it's a minor semantics difference, then they should just be honest and correctly refer to the situation as an embargo, not a blockade.

link
beepbooptheory 39 days ago
...so that is a 'no' to the question, right?
link