I don't see foreign policy as an "all or nothing" game (but it is a game). Arguments about equivalency
do lead to charges of hypocrisy. The Cold War was a perfect example. We attempted to influence the Soviet Union, while never recognizing its annexation of the "captive nations." We engaged in trade, signed treaties, exchanged scholars and athletes, etc., all because the Soviet Union had clout.
Cuba is, in effect, a captive nation. In terms of clout, it is a piss-ant. The notion that the US should not attempt to influence Cuba because of the US' relationship with China is what I find "insulting."
Well, I have a problem with high toned retoric and finger waggling when we are by definition supporting terrorists and atrocities ourselves (via China) and caling it okay.
I guess we will have to dissagree on this one Rudeboy.
I don't see foreign policy as an "all or nothing" game (but it is a game). You're right. It's a game in which certain elite members of our government (and society) play with human lives as if they were chess pieces on a game board and discard any charges that they are responsible for the deaths of their "game pieces" by claiming they were doing it for some "higher good" when in fact they are simply tyrants who have no regard for human life.