It was an all out embargo.Cannonpointer » 28 Feb 2024, 8:15 pm » wrote: ↑ Refusing to buy their **** for 22 years was a boycott.
An embargo would have been us blocking their ships from leaving their ports, or preventing them from entering one or more foreign ports.
You're thinking of the Tudor Dynasty.Monderegal » 28 Feb 2024, 5:45 pm » wrote: ↑ Tutor with a capital T is actually a dynasty of kings in England. Perhaps you were thinking tutor. They came to power after the War of the Roses.
Society teaching me self deception is a greater good didn't work k-12 so I didn't seek more higher education on how to deny life in plain sight getting a degree in higher educated stupidity.
Were we preventing the chinee from selling to singapore or indonesia? If not, we were not embargoing their ports. We were merely boycotting their products - refusing to do bidniss with them.GHETTOBLASTER » 28 Feb 2024, 8:23 pm » wrote: ↑ It was an all out embargo.
If you were buying Chinese goods during those years they would have been smuggled in.
I would deport them to sweden, if I DID deport them.ActionJackson » 28 Feb 2024, 8:13 pm » wrote: ↑ So where will you put them before deportation? Who is taking them?
the guy with a hard on for IranCannonpointer » 28 Feb 2024, 8:19 pm » wrote: ↑ The guy in your avatar being likened to a puhtahto is the only pResident this CENTURY to launch zero mindless foreign interventions.
You must be famous.Cannonpointer » 28 Feb 2024, 8:16 pm » wrote: ↑ Dude, I'm just JOKING.
Anyone who knows me realizes those mother **** are going to camps. And digging ditches with star wrenches.
okCannonpointer » 28 Feb 2024, 8:31 pm » wrote: ↑ I would deport them to sweden, if I DID deport them.
That's where I would deport everyone to - except swedes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFreOAA2I1A
Yeah, that was some major neocon dick suck.
I'm an institution at the local diner.
I think we met the 2nd and 3rd definition.Cannonpointer » 28 Feb 2024, 8:27 pm » wrote: ↑ Were we preventing the chinee from selling to singapore or indonesia? If not, we were not embargoing their ports. We were merely boycotting their products - refusing to do bidniss with them.
And, yes - to evade the boycott would require smuggling, as our ports would not accept chinaman goods.
Did you read those definitions you posted? We BOYCOTTED China - meaning we refused to do business with them. But to embargo them, we would have to prevent the free movement of their ships.
Cannonpointer » 28 Feb 2024, 8:33 pm » wrote: ↑ Yeah, that was some major neocon dick suck.
Still less bellicose than his predecessor or the pretender who succeeded him.
Cannonpointer » 28 Feb 2024, 8:33 pm » wrote: ↑ Yeah, that was some major neocon dick suck.
Still less bellicose than his predecessor or the pretender who succeeded him.
Fair enough - the actions of the US government in the postwar period matched the SECONDARY definition of embargo. But it precisely matched the PRIMARY definition of boycott.GHETTOBLASTER » 28 Feb 2024, 8:34 pm » wrote: ↑ I think we met the 2nd and 3rd definition.
embargo /ĕm-bär′gō/
noun
- A government order prohibiting the movement of merchant ships into or out of its ports.
- A prohibition by a government on certain or all trade with a foreign nation.
- A prohibition; a ban.
"an embargo on criticism."
Absolute poppycock.
I do not believe he did. And he tried repeatedly to order the troops out of Syria - where they had no legal right to be.
My brain is reading all this and to me boycott is not buying it off the shelves since it is already delivered and paid for at the wholesale level. so the country of origin already was paid before delivery. Franchise retail gets boycotted nd the same products are sold in other franchises, that is domestic practices of a society shooting itself in the foot. people fighting within the me species over which ancestral lineage is top dog just ends up the species eliminates itself eventually. Well 400 generations of doing it, eventually has arrived.Cannonpointer » 28 Feb 2024, 8:41 pm » wrote: ↑ Fair enough - the actions of the US government in the postwar period matched the SECONDARY definition of embargo. But it precisely matched the PRIMARY definition of boycott.
As a result of these facts, any argument as to whether boycott or embargo is the MORE proper, MORE precise term is quite settled in favor of boycott.
Cannonpointer » 28 Feb 2024, 8:31 pm » wrote: ↑ I would deport them to sweden, if I DID deport them.
That's where I would deport everyone to - except swedes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFreOAA2I1A
I think he did deploy more to Afghan. Several thousand?
Baloney.Cannonpointer » 28 Feb 2024, 8:52 pm » wrote: ↑ And he tried repeatedly to order the troops out of Syria - where they had no legal right to be.
His generals refused to obey his orders to leave Syria.