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.
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?
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.
No what? The US's embargo and threats to tariff countries that don't match this embargo is blocking most but not all oil bound for Cuba. Russia, for example, continues to trade with Cuba because it's willing to tolerate increase in tariffs (not that Russia is trading much with the US anyway).
If this were a blockade then the US would be boarding Russian oil tankers even if they're legally flagged as a Russian vessel.
If you really think the distinction between blockade and embargo is irrelevant then we can just acknowledge that it's an embargo, not a blockade, and move on.
Ok! So the answer is in fact 'yes', with once again the rider that it is not something we should call a blockade. That seems fine with me, I think we agree about the important thing here.
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.