Comments on: Libyan Aid Ship Extracts Concessions from Israel; Resumption of House Demolitions in Jerusalem

By: lidia

lidia — Sun, 18 Jul 2010 16:28:37 +0000

Could Phud1 READ what he had posted? OK, I’ll remind him his own words – see his first post here

“The US does not interfere in commerce between Cuba and any country that cares to trade with it.” I refuted his words with facts – USA DOES.

After that he change the topic :)

His second wrong declaration I leave alone – anyone could check it up by oneself.

By: Phud1

Phud1 — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 22:47:04 +0000

There doesn’t seem to be a way to reply directly to “Lidia:”
“I cited your own words and refuted them. I have NOT bothered with names for deeds , but with facts.
1) USA DOES “interfere”
2) USA started acting against Cuba (no matter how to call them) NOT because of WMD or some other crap.
Now, you could say what you want, but facts are stubborn.
Now about “stupidity” – USA rulers know that they cannot force China and Vietnam – they tried and failed. But C and V are far away, and could not be so much of a “bad example” of independent politics and alternative way to USA neighbors . Cuba is , and exactly because of it Cuba is targeted.”
——————–
You have changed the subject. The original point was not whether or not the US interfered with trade with Cuba, Vietnam, or North Korea; but rather that what the US was doing (“blockade” or “embargo”) was illegal.
I said, and I believe I proved, that trade restrictions as a matter of policy cannot be illegal but I agree they can be stupid and counterproductive (e.g., Cuba). The only instances of forcible prevention of “trade” were interdiction of nuclear missiles going to Cuba, and UN-approved sanctions against Iraq. Hence perfectly legal.
No question the US “interferes” with trade with Cuba. Why, and whether it’s smart or helpful, are completely different issues than legality, and I only addressed legality.

By: lidia

lidia — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 04:29:43 +0000

I cited your own words and refuted them. I have NOT bothered with names for deeds , but with facts.
1) USA DOES “interfere”
2) USA started acting against Cuba (no matter how to call them) NOT because of WMD or some other crap.

Now, you could say what you want, but facts are stubborn.

Now about “stupidity” – USA rulers know that they cannot force China and Vietnam – they tried and failed. But C and V are far away, and could not be so much of a “bad example” of independent politics and alternative way to USA neighbors . Cuba is , and exactly because of it Cuba is targeted.

By: Eleonora

Eleonora — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 22:22:49 +0000

“The timing of the move was a slap in the face of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who was about to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. Mubarak hastily cancelled the meeting. The Egyptian government’s close cooperation with Israel is deeply unpopular with the Egyptian public.”

The saying goes on the streets of Cairo that the meeting has been cancelled due to the suddenly again deteriorating health of Mubarak. Really, nothing Israel could or would do would convince Mubarak, the obedient servant, to cancel a meeting with his master. It is not only the close co-operation with Israel which is deeply unpopular with the Egyptian public – it’s Mubarak and his cronies that are unpopular to say the least.

By: Eleonora

Eleonora — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 22:16:10 +0000

Good questions, Kathleen. Why not ask Al Jazeera directly – and any other TV station for that matter who refuses to show maps of the realities on the ground? Maybe if everybody reading your comment would just do that – addressing their local, national and international TV channels – we might get somewhere? I for one will do just that.

Thank you for the excellent idea :-)

By: Phud1

Phud1 — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 22:06:05 +0000

I think we may be getting hung up on the semantics of the word “embargo.” I know of no circumstances under which a policy decision not to trade in certain goods with certain countries–whatever goods, for whatever reasons, good or bad, wise or stupid–is illegal. There are definitely circumstances under which use of military force to prevent certain goods from entering or leaving a country or area is illegal but (1) wrt Cuba that was only a very limited time for a very limited purpose and has nothing to do with Cuba’s economy or the nature of its government; (2) wrt Iraq the…whatever you care to call it…was approved by the UN; (3) wrt North Korea it is mostly trade policy, not use of force.

By: Phud1

Phud1 — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 20:56:57 +0000

(1) A blockade is a military action to prevent travel to/from an area or country. There is no blockade or any military or forcible activity to prevent other countries from trading with Cuba. US trade sanctions fall under my statement that “I know of no law, international or otherwise, that requires one country to permit trade with another.” If the US chooses to enforce trade restrictions with countries that do business with Cuba, or North Korea, or Iran, that is neither a blockade nor an embargo.
(2) You prove my point. The only embargo and/or blockade was specifically directed at the USSR bringing nuclear-armed missiles into Cuba. It was not a full blockade; any ship was subject to inspection by the US Navy and if found not to be carrying such weapons, it was free to proceed. This “partial blockade” lasted only a few days. Other than that there has been no militarily-enforced blockade or embargo of Cuba, only trade restrictions which as I said violate no law I’m aware of.
(3) “Is it not odd that defender of USA sanctions against Iraq and Cuba is not very well aware about reality?” Why do you conclude that I support such sanctions? My only opposition is to mis-statements of the facts, e.g., that there is a blockade of Cuba and that UN-approved sanctions against Iraq were illegal. (And the further mis-statements of fact that follow your “reality.”) For the record, I think our Cuba policy is incredibly stupid; that we should have billions in annual trade with China and Vietnam, and try to use trade to strongarm Cuba into reform.

By: Kathleen

Kathleen — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 17:14:25 +0000

Why does Al Jazeera use the Israeli released clip of what took place on Mavi marmara instead of using Iara Lee’s footage. Also why do they agree to show maps of Palestine and Israel that show Palestinians lands with out the illegal Israeli settlements and the non contiguous lands of the Palestinians broken into pieces by these illegal settlements?