Ah right, this vote was about taking away US's right to self determination, how silly of me not to see it that way. But, only now even if we follow your silly logic we have an even more inconvenient question to answer, why would the whole world vote for taking US's right to self determination away? But something is telling me that you won't answer this, it's inconvenient to have people with critical thinking that follow logic ask such difficult questions, a good tactic would be to become more arrogant and offensive, anything to draw attention away from the question. Or perhaps ask a rhetorical question back, for example like, why do you think a country would want to trade with a global hegemony and printer for global reserve currency (when they always have an option to starve). And the fact that anyone who touches global reserve currency (USD) falls under this unilateral embargo and can get sanctioned, and the shortages of food and medicine in Cuba are all just unfortunate coincidences, right? Perhaps they should hire you to reeducate the world population with your boundless depth of knowledge?
I'm just pointing out how ridiculous your rhetoric is. Making up "blockade" where there isn't one. Talking about self-determination that is one-way only etc. I'm all for free trade. You're for free trade for Cuba but obviously not for Ukraine's grain, amirite?
Not sure
why exactly "the whole world voted" the way it did, but I don't disagree. Let's start with Russia fucking off Ukraine, which "the whole world voted" for too, then we can get to US lifting embargo off Cuba, and eventually world peace. I'll leave the implementation details to you, geopolitical genius that you are.
The documents show that the initial concept of U.S. economic pressure was to create “hardship” and “disenchantment” among the Cuban populace and to deny “money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, [and] to bring about hunger, desperation, and the overthrow of [the] government.” However, a CIA case study of the embargo, written twenty years after its imposition, concluded that the sanctions “have not met any of their objectives.”
One nation just gets to decide if and how another nation gets to participate in global trade. But you are technically correct, if you try to bring medicine into Cuba not cleared by US, US navy will not shoot you down now. They'll sanction you and everyone up the chain, including distributors up to and including the manufacturer of said medicine, essentially bankrupting everyone. So not a military blockade, just a financial one. Same results, different wording.
So once again good ol' American exceptionalism, so US has been doing this for 60years even during the time of peace, whole world has been against it for 31yrs now, but of course we all are activated to suddenly care very deeply about Ukrainian freedoms
, and surely a good place to remedy this after it's has been going on for 60yrs, would be to start with...Russia during its current ongoing conflict, the biggest offender right?
Taking this even further they're now trying to set a precedent that even straight up blockading food, energy and fuel (effectively disabling all hospitals) to a whole region, is apparently now is not a war crime, as long as that nation still has military which uses fuel and food (which technically military cannot exist without). Seems like Ukraine abstained from telling Israel to fuck off on that too now, but let's all close our eyes on this one too and only get activated and take a position when someone who you don't support does it right? Pretty much the definition of a double standards, but who cares about rules and laws now.
Ability to export goods for financial benefit during the conflict is the least of my concerns. But for the record I'm against cutting power and not allowing inspected fuel (through red cross or similar) to power the hospital generators (even if military might still have some fuel!), regardless if it's in Gaza or in Ukraine.
