3 ms·

Yes the embargo is real. The point is, what the above commenter wrote: > The US starves anyone it does not like from natural resources and subsequently makes t

Yes the embargo is real. The point is, what the above commenter wrote: > The US starves anyone it does not like from natural resources and subsequently makes them buy US natural resources. It has done this to the EU, now it is trying to do it to China and Cuba is the complete opposite of an embargo. The US is not making Cuba exclusively purchase oil from the US, it's prohibiting US oil produces from selling to Cuba. Whatever speculation about what the US will do following some hypothetical regime change is irrelevant.

dpark 5mo ago
Are you only here to nitpick semantics? The statement clearly is not that allowing Cuba to buy resources from the US would be an embargo. The statement is that the US is embargoing (de facto blockading) Cuba today in order to force them to buy from the US tomorrow.
- Manuel_D 5mo ago
  In case you didn't notice, this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48138329 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48138329 is a different user than the comment I first responded to.
  - dpark 5mo ago
    I saw where you insisted that instituting a blockade to force buying from the US wouldn’t be an embargo. And then I saw where you reiterated that again because you’re just nitpicking definitions. Me recapping your chain of comments and to be low value for both of us, though. My point stands. Instituting an embargo and lifting it later once objectives are achieved doesn’t mean an embargo didn’t happen. “Yes embargo” and “No embargo” can both be true at different times. And “yes embargo” can be used to force a specific “no embargo” outcome (such as hypothetically depending on the US for resources).
    - deleted 5mo ago
      [deleted]
    - Manuel_D 5mo ago
      "The US isn't going to sell oil to Cuba." "The US will be Cuba's exclusive supplier of oil." Are these not polar opposites?
      - dpark 5mo ago
        No. They are temporally distinct. The statement (true or not) is that the US is imposing blockade so that Cuba is forced to cut ties with other nations and depend solely on the US. The blockade state is an embargo. They would no longer be embargoed in the end state where they depend solely on the US.

dpark 5mo ago

Are you only here to nitpick semantics? The statement clearly is not that allowing Cuba to buy resources from the US would be an embargo. The statement is that the US is embargoing (de facto blockading) Cuba today in order to force them to buy from the US tomorrow.

Manuel_D 5mo ago
In case you didn't notice, this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48138329 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48138329 is a different user than the comment I first responded to.
- dpark 5mo ago
  I saw where you insisted that instituting a blockade to force buying from the US wouldn’t be an embargo. And then I saw where you reiterated that again because you’re just nitpicking definitions. Me recapping your chain of comments and to be low value for both of us, though. My point stands. Instituting an embargo and lifting it later once objectives are achieved doesn’t mean an embargo didn’t happen. “Yes embargo” and “No embargo” can both be true at different times. And “yes embargo” can be used to force a specific “no embargo” outcome (such as hypothetically depending on the US for resources).
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
  - Manuel_D 5mo ago
    "The US isn't going to sell oil to Cuba." "The US will be Cuba's exclusive supplier of oil." Are these not polar opposites?
    - dpark 5mo ago
      No. They are temporally distinct. The statement (true or not) is that the US is imposing blockade so that Cuba is forced to cut ties with other nations and depend solely on the US. The blockade state is an embargo. They would no longer be embargoed in the end state where they depend solely on the US.