Sure. But we’re talking about an embargo. Everyone has the right to use embargoes, and they’re a time-honored method of non-violent opposition. Framing this as the US transgressing some boundary is hyperbole at best.
What is the point of this embargo? What is it trying to accomplish? What is worse about the Cuban government, than all the other countries the US doesn’t embargo?
Can you not be violent in self defense? Embargoes and sanctions can also be seen as a form of violence if they cause deaths. If you prevent essential goods like food or medicine from reaching those in need, and people die as a result-- is that better than bombing or shooting them?
Letting those powers do whatever they want is counter productive.
Sure. But we’re talking about an embargo. Everyone has the right to use embargoes, and they’re a time-honored method of non-violent opposition. Framing this as the US transgressing some boundary is hyperbole at best.
What is the point of this embargo? What is it trying to accomplish? What is worse about the Cuban government, than all the other countries the US doesn’t embargo?
Whether the embargo is justified or not is beside my point.
No it isn’t. Non-violent opposition to what? Everyone also has the right to violent opposition, but the context makes all the difference.
Violence, by definition, is unjustified. But that is also beside my point. Which has to do with the UN, not the embargo.
Can you not be violent in self defense? Embargoes and sanctions can also be seen as a form of violence if they cause deaths. If you prevent essential goods like food or medicine from reaching those in need, and people die as a result-- is that better than bombing or shooting them?