On his first trip to Cuba during his third term in office, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva called the embargo imposed by the United States on the island "illegal" and denounced the island's inclusion on the list of state sponsors of terrorism.
And rightfully so. The US isn’t the world police and doesn’t have the right to block entire countries just because they feel like it. Just imagine China or Russia doing the same to some random European country. The double standards speak volumes. This is not the way.
Well Russia is currently bombing a European country which I personally consider much worse than an embargo.
Well, I’m sorry, but I don’t see how two wrongs makes a right. This is some massive whataboutism. Both an embargo on Cuba and Russia bombing other countries are horrendous activities.
Sure, but the comment I was replying to made a direct comparison with Russia.
First and foremost, that was my comment. Secondly, it still doesn’t make it okay. It’s not a real argument. If the US can pull this shit off, why can’t Russia or China. I’m not excusing their actions, but just look at it from the perspective of someone from one of those countries. They see the US invading countries, putting embargos on others, and a bunch of other crap. Why shouldn’t they do the same? The invasion of Iraq was just as justified as the invasion of Ukraine. Same shit based on bullshit arguments. Yet somehow one is more acceptable than the other. I’d rather not have any of them. And I’m from Eastern Europe just for context :)
I’m not justifying anything. I was just reacting to this:
Which was a weird sentence - we don’t have to imagine anything, Russia is already doing much worse.
It’s not whataboutism, you made a comment and this was a valid reply to the content of your comment in context.
-unconcerned outsider
The US this year has launched airstrikes in Syria, Somalia and possibly Yemen. That is not somehow better, just because they’re not a European country. And even if it were better, another country doing really shitty things is not a good argument for why a separate country can do maybe-less-shitty-but-still-shitty things.
Cuba has been under full trade embargo by the US for over 60 years, after the US Bay of Pigs Invasion failure. Russia only has sanctions and embargoes by the US on some products though, despite invading a European country. How does that happen?
The Russian population in the USA isn’t demanding we embargo Russia whereas it is Cuban-Americans leading that charge in FL.
Edit changed Cubans to Cuban-Americans as TheDankHold pointed out my error.
Cuban-Americans are americans. They’re not citizens of Cuba. And just because a minority wants an embargo on another country doesn’t mean you should just play world police. That’s not your place to decide who trades with whom. If you don’t wanna do trade with them, then don’t.
It is actually Americans leading that charge, they’ve been here long enough to qualify as Americans first and foremost imo. And that doesn’t mean anything regardless, how do the citizens that live on the island feel about the embargo?
Thanks I edited my comment to reflect the necessary change.
Why should Cubans determine the policy of other countries? Do I get a say in how Cuba does business?
Im not asking those flippantly. What you are suggesting makes no sense given how reality functions.
relevance?
the US isn’t blockading Cuba, they’re just embargoing it. There’s a difference.
It’s not a direct blockade, but the US has in the past threatened to cut off financial aid to any country that trades with Cuba, disallows foreign subsidiaries of US companies to trade, and even threatens sanctions upon foreign companies that do any trade in or with the US that also trade in Cuba.
The UN has cited to condemn it every year for many years, with usually only the US and Israel voting against. They say it is a violation of international law and the UN charter.
It is abhorrent and unjustifiable, and has a real cost in human lives and suffering.
Well the americans here seem to think that if they call one thing legal then it must be legal, because after all they’re playing world police. And then they wonder why two thirds of the world despise their government…
The USA, like any country, has the right to decide who they trade with and the right to suggest the terms under which they are willing to engage in trade. Other nations have the right to accept those terms or not.
I do not support the embargo but it is ignorant to suggest it is illegal.
It is illegal lol. An embargo is not “we don’t trade with you”. An embargo is “no one is allowed to trade with you and we’ll turn their economies and their ships into shambles if they do”.
No it isn not illegal and you’ll have difficulty proving that like others have.
We are embargoing Cuba yet most of the EU trades with them so it really sounds like you don’t know what embargoes are.
For example Havana Club rum is sold throughout Europe and Europeans can spend money in Cuba without reprisal. What they can’t do as per our agreements is sell them arms.
This is a bad faith argument, they are doing much more than that. They force other countries to do the same through economic pressure.
The legality of it is foggy only because the US literally decides if what it does is legal or illegal. It’s condemned internationally and clearly morally shitty, stop bootlicking.
No this is not a bad faith argument. It is in fact exactly why this situation continues. You might not like the reality if the situation but that does not mean I am arguing in bad faith.
Accusing people of being bootlickers because they do not see things as you do is in bad faith because it is an attempt to write off what people say without any logical reason to do so. It us a form of ad hominem.
The bad faith part is how you pick and choose your words carefully to describe strong arming other nations into your own embargo.
I’m calling you a bootlicker because you have decided all on your own to be the spokesperson for people that are clearly in the wrong who have their boot layed across not only your neck but the necks of most of the world, while saying “I don’t support the embargo”. Well if you don’t, why are you defending it and being part of the problem?
That’s not bad faith. I believe that nations should have the right to determine who they trade with and under what circumstances. I totally get Iran not wanting t trade with people who arm their enemies. I’d get Taiwan deciding to restrict the sale of microchips to nations that would purchase them on China’s behalf. It is an entirely logical way to go about functioning as a nation.
What I do not support is the Cuban embargo since the fall if the USSR as Cuba cannot in any way pose a threat to America without significant military assistance that no one can provide.
There are two different things going on in this discussion and I would respectfully ask you to pay attention that fact and avoid incivility as it is unjustified.
The US is forcing other countries not to trade with Cuba, hence taking away their right to determine who they trade with.
You bring up Taiwan, but its a lot more poignant to flip your example and ask if it would be okay for China to stop all trade with any nations that trades with Taiwan.
I don’t need to be civil with someone that’s arguing in bad faith. You are for the embargo since you are actively defending it. Just your use of Taiwan and China, somehow comparing the US to Taiwan and China to Cuba is a play on emotions. Cuba isn’t Goliath.
No the USA is attempting to get others to restrict trade if they want to trade with the USA.
Yes it would be fair for China to do this and they in fact do raise this from time to time.
Again Im not arguing in bad faith you just keep resorting to that claim because you lack the ability to address my claim. Your lack of reasoning skills does not justify acting rudely.