Is Castro Already Dead?

[Architect]

Look, English isn't my first language (I'm a Gaelic speaker from the Scottish islands) so I'm sypathetic to translation issues here, but I can't help think you're all getting yourself tied up on a point that doesn't make any difference to the argument at hand.

Dann - "Blockade", in modern UK and American English usage, does tend to suggest active measures, particularly military although I note that in the not so distant past French trawlers blockaded some Channel ports.

Others - Embargo as a term is something of an understatement here. What we actually see are very wide ranging steps by the US administration(s) to impose powers which also restrict third parties/citizens of other sovereign states in a way which goes much further than normal usage of that word would suggest.

So, like, get back to the substance of the argument and quit with the terminology thing.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Because of a word!? Well, OK, then.

It demonstrates an unwillingness or inability to discuss a topic rationally. When you deliberately use loaded terminology to antagonize, it shows that you don't actually want to have a discussion, but rather, that you want to spout rhetoric from your soapbox. You have shown complete disrespect for any other viewpoint on the issue, and, therefore, should expect your viewpoint to be similarly dismissed.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Now, now. I would say you have at least two sensible Danes on the forum: me and MRC_Hans.

I had forgotten MRC_Hans. Thanks for the reminder.

 

[dann]

It demonstrates an unwillingness or inability to discuss a topic rationally.

As you can see above, ZB, two words are being used about the same phenomenon: The US Blockade/Embargo of Cuba. You like one word, and if I use another one, I am unwilling or unable "to discuss a topic rationally, in your opinion.
That doesn't sound very rational to me, and I tend to think that Architect is right when he says, "get back to the substance of the argument", which, apparently, you won't.

 

[marksman]

In the English language, blockade refers exclusively to physical impediments to movement.

Using blockade to describe American policy to Cuba is grammatically wrong. It's like using the word "assault" when you mean "insult".

Embargo is the appropriate term in English. If dann insists on using the wrong word, he can't complain when people misinterpret the points he tries to make.

 

[gtc]

Please go ahead and do so, gtc: Compare the millions of South East Asians killed by Americans abroad with the thousands killed by Castro and Che during the revolution in Cuba!
How come that comparison never seems to occur to anybody when the people killed in the Cuban revolution are mentioned?
You might even want to compare the number of people executed in Cuba with the number of people executed in the USA on what appears to be a daily basis.
Go ahead, gtc!

Nice try.

You complain that the US does not have a monument to the dead Vietnamese. Yet Cuba has no monument to those killed by the Communist party.

What do you think would happen to a Cuban who built a monument to those killed by the Communists? What would happen to an American who built a monument to the victims of the Vietnamese war?

 

[dann]

What would happen to an American who built a monument to the victims of the Vietnamese war?

He would get very poor since it would have to be as long as the Great Wall of China!

 

[dann]

In the English language, blockade refers exclusively to physical impediments to movement.

Using blockade to describe American policy to Cuba is grammatically wrong. It's like using the word "assault" when you mean "insult".

Embargo is the appropriate term in English. If dann insists on using the wrong word, he can't complain when people misinterpret the points he tries to make.

Yes, and a lot of Americans use grammatically wrong, inappropriate language without being misunderstood. Like I said, Get over it, language prissies!

 

[dann]

In the English language, blockade refers exclusively to physical impediments to movement.

By the way, why don't you read your own links?
"verb
1. hinder or prevent the progress or accomplishment of; "His brother blocked him at every turn" [syn: obstruct]"

 

[Architect]

By the way, why don't you read your own links?
"verb
1. hinder or prevent the progress or accomplishment of; "His brother blocked him at every turn" [syn: obstruct]"

Dann,

As another person who's first language is not English (but IS bilingual) please take it from me that blockade means a physical act such as the French trawler blockades of channel ports. The synonym obstruct also tends to imply such action.

Now the Oxford English Dictionary defines embargo as:

embargo

/embaargo/

• noun (pl. embargoes) 1 an official ban, especially on trade or other commercial activity with a particular country. 2 historical an order of a state forbidding foreign ships to enter, or any ships to leave, its ports.

(1) is the common usage. However such an embargo will typically be effected by one country, refering only to its sovereign territory and those under it's jurisdiction.

What appears to be unprecedented in the case of Cuba is that the US legislation sought to restrict and criminalise the actions of third part sovereign states (and their citizens) for actions committed outwith the US. Even the UK and Canada, traditional allies of the US, have view this as illegal and have passed legislation accordingly whilst the EU has adopted a similar position.

Under circumstances where the US has clearly sought to impose such punitive sanctions, it is therefore rather rich of some posters here to argue that any poverty in Cuba is purely a result of communist rule.

 

[dann]

As another person who's first language is not English (but IS bilingual) please take it from me that blockade means a physical act such as the French trawler blockades of channel port.

I don't deny it, but it is not really a problem of linguistics. A lot of people, whose first language is English, use the word in the same sense as I (and the Cubans (well, maybe not some of those in Miami)) do.

 

[jmercer]

Well, for one thing, I expect Raoul to take over. How that will affect Cuba's government and world position, I can't say; Raoul has made a career of being hidden in his brother's shadow for so long, I have no idea what kind of "el Presidente" he'll be.

 

[Architect]

I don't deny it, but it is not really a problem of linguistics. A lot of people, whose first language is English, use the word in the same sense as I (and the Cubans (well, maybe not some of those in Miami)) do.

Dann, I am much minded of Scandanavian band Ace of Base trying to claim that "All that she wants is another baby" actually was a normal variation of "boyfriend", when in actual fact in English it isn't used that way. This gaused some mild mirth in English speaking countries.

I live in an English speaking country, was education almost exclusively in English, use English every day for business, and am completely blingual (which I must stress is different from being fluent).

Trust me; you're wrong. Get back to the point at hand instead of arguing semantics.

 

[marksman]

Yes, and a lot of Americans use grammatically wrong, inappropriate language without being misunderstood. Like I said, Get over it, language prissies!

They are speaking in a British forum, where, I assume, blockade means the same as the American word "embargo." (Alternately, they are deliberately using the wrong word to be inflammatory.)

The choice to insist on using the wrong word in a forum that predominantly uses American English is yours. I had presumed that you communicate in this forum with the intention of being understood and would thus have appreciated being told that you were using a word incorrectly.

You also misread the dictionary definition you quoted back at me. Clearly, it is referencing physical impediments.

 

[Darth Rotor]

You also misread the dictionary definition you quoted back at me. Clearly, it is referencing physical impediments.

Since I can't argue with that idiot anymore, I'll offer a nice source of definition to you, a reasonable person.

http://www.dcds.forces.ca/jointDoc/docs/LOAC_e.pdf

From the Canadian Forces manual covering the Laws of Armed Conflict, you find the internationally acceptable legal definition (Same as that found in US Joint Pubs, NATO pubs, etc.)

SECTION 10 - BLOCKADE
844. DEFINITION
1. A blockade is the surrounding or blocking of a place such as a port to prevent entry and exit of supplies.
845. DECLARATION OF A BLOCKADE
1. A blockade shall be declared. A party declaring a blockade shall notify all belligerents and neutral states. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration, location, and extent of the blockade and the period within which vessels of neutral states may leave the blockaded coastline. The force maintaining the blockade may be stationed at a distance determined by military requirements.
846. BLOCKADE MUST BE EFFECTIVE
1. A blockade must be effective. To be effective, a blockade must be maintained by a surface, air or subsurface force or other mechanism that is sufficient to render entry into or exit from the blockaded area dangerous.
847. CAPTURE OF OR ATTACK ON MERCHANT VESSELS
1. Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked.
848. RESTRICTIONS
1. A blockade:
a. must not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral states, and
b. must be applied impartially to the vessels of all states.

An embargo, on the other hand, is a policy of witholding trade, or rights to trade. Best example I can think of was the OPEC oil embargo in 1973 vis a vis the US. They didn't need to send a fleet anywhere, they just didn't sell us oil.

Likewise, the US isn't blocking any entrance to Cuban ports with its navy, it is restricting American trade. It is thus an embargo.

DR

 

[Architect]

They are speaking in a British forum, where, I assume, blockade means the same as the American word "embargo." (Alternately, they are deliberately using the wrong word to be inflammatory.)

I'm British and I have already covered how we use the terms; was something unclear?

BTW it's probably unfair to suggest the American English predominates here; there are a lot of Brits together with Antipodeans and Europeans (not to mention our Canadian cousins) who do not use American English as a matter of course.

 

[dann]

They are speaking in a British forum, where, I assume, blockade means the same as the American word "embargo."

I could be wrong, but Pastors for Peace appear to be American. So does the website Dissident Voice.
So it's not a question of the inability of Scandinavians, Cubans or Brits to speak proper English, as in the case of All that she wants ...

 

[marksman]

Agreed. But I believe American English is the most commonly used form of English here. At any rate, it appears dann's use of blockade is inaccurate under any version of English, as welll as the definition used in international law.

Dann is using blockade in a way that is used only by partisans. (Actually, his first cite references the actual blockade of Cuba by JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis -- that would be an appropriate use of the word, though Dann isn't using the word to reference that blockade.)

The remaining cites are to partisan groups such as Cuba Solidarity, Cuba's own website, Global Exchange (which at least qualifies the word blockade with the adjective "economic", so as to minimize confusion), People's Weekly World, and Pastors for Peace.

Personally, I amnot an advocate of the embargo and I think it should be repealed. I don't think it accomplishes anything and is being used a mute protest of Cuba's regime. That said, I think we should discuss the embargo's merits accurately, without resort to cheap political theatrics and name redefinition.

 

[marksman]

I could be wrong, but Pastors for Peace appear to be American. So does the website Dissident Voice.
So it's not a question of the inability of Scandinavians, Cubans or Brits to speak proper English, as in the case of All that she wants ...

You're right. It's not a matter of the version of English but a partisan attempt to redefine a word for political demagoguery. Either way, it has no place on a skeptics' forum.

(Dissident Voice is also expressly a partisan forum trying to redefine the word "blockade" for political purpose.)

 

[dann]

It is thus an embargo.

Yes, and a "punitive and disproportionate" one, which is why I and many others prefer to call it a blockade, whereas you and for instance Wiki would rather talk about an embargo.
By the way, what exactly are the language rules here. Would you also object to calling Posada a terrorist? Or is he just alleged?