Lyndon Larouche on linking Russia, Central Asia and Europe.

[Warsie]

I thought this would be interesting for you all to see. I remember reading some of these articles a while ago. What do you think.

http://larouchepub.com/lar/2007/inte...ru_moscow.html

http://tinyurl.com/5db7gc

http://larouchepub.com/other/2002/2908ibero_ldbge.html

[Warsie]

fixed 1st link:

http://larouchepub.com/lar/2007/intervi ... oscow.html

[Vympel]

This guy reads like a whackjob is my initial reaction.

[Scottish Ninja]

It is a pretty well-known fact around these parts that Lyndon LaRouche is, in fact, a whackjob.

[Thanas]

LaRouche is a grade A whackjob and his theory doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Furthermore, he is also a rascist to boot. The whole deal in a neat, wrapped-up package of idiocy and excrement.

[Sidewinder]

The orchestrator of the problem is the British Empire. It's the financial interests associated with Britain, which are the main enemy of the world today. Also, Russia, China, and India are enemies of Britain. These financier interests believe that they can sink the United States, and, by doing so, bring the rest of the world under British control. Actually, we're on the edge of the threat of a new world war.

This guy should hire himself out to anime studios that want to do "White man evil evil evil!!!" shows. He certainly has paranoid delusional fantasies to match those of the nuts who created The Silent Service.

[Patrick Degan]

At least it's a bit more imaginative than his theory of the world drug trade being run by the secret partnership of Henry Kissinger and the Queen of England.

[The Yosemite Bear]

This guy reads like a whackjob is my initial reaction.

Well he was a pre-ennial Wack job Presidential Canidate, who spent a lot of time in Federal Prison.

[Warsie]

what do you think about his Eurasian railroad/linkage project. Is it a good thing to get the resources he says are in Siberia to supply the growing economies of India and China?

[Thanas]

^Have you ever taken even a beginners course in economics or geography? Do you know anything about Siberia, India and china? Or the current political climate?

If so, why do you even ask such a question?

[Warsie]

^Have you ever taken even a beginners course in economics or geography? '

geography, yes.

Do you know anything about Siberia, India and china? Or the current political climate?

yes.

If so, why do you even ask such a question?

to see what you think.

[K. A. Pital]

LaRouche is more correctly LaDouche, and he's a lunatic conspiracy hoaxer and a political whackjob.

He wants railroads? We all know that it's fine even without him; and there are Moscow-Beijing magistral already, what else do you need?

[Thanas]

^Have you ever taken even a beginners course in economics or geography? '

geography, yes.

Do you know anything about Siberia, India and china? Or the current political climate?

yes.

If so, why do you even ask such a question?

to see what you think.

Well, since you allegedly know all those things, you should have recognized it to be an asinine idea at first glance.

So why bother the board with it? Wanted to see whether we were idiots? Or did you honestly think this was a swell idea?

[The Yosemite Bear]

I thought the guy died in Federal Prison for his association with bank robbers and other racist terrorist groups, like a long time ago?

[Thanas]

No, he and his crazy wife are still running around wasting time and money.

[Sidewinder]

what do you think about his Eurasian railroad/linkage project. Is it a good thing to get the resources he says are in Siberia to supply the growing economies of India and China?

In an ideal world, everyone will benefit from land-bridge linking Russia to China to India, Russia to Alaska, and Russia to Japan, if LaRouche's idea of building a Chunnel underneath the Bering Strait and a bridge from Sakhalin to Hokkaido get off the ground.

Then reality rears its ugly head. Tensions between China and India and between China and Russia due to border disputes (resolved for now, but may flare up again in the future), or due to Chinese support for Pakistan and Russian support for India (it can be argued the Indo-Pakistani Wars were proxy wars between China and the USSR); between the US and Russia (too many reasons to list here); and between Russia and Japan due to Japanese demands that Russia return the Kuril Islands, which the USSR conquered during WWII; these will all give the various nations reasons to say, "Fuck off!" and close the land-bridges between them. And what if one or more of these nations suffers from political instability, e.g., a coup overthrows the Russian government, China gets caught up in a civil war (again), or India and Pakistan start another war (again) and demand that Russia and China provide massive amounts of support?

The construction of the land-bridges themselves demands DECADES of planning, and will take DECADES for the benefits provided (increased trade being one example) to pay for the costs. Ideally, all those nations will be at peace during that time, but no one expected WWI to last for four fucking years, and no one expected the USSR to just collapse in 1991.

[Thanas]

Actually, I am pretty certain that the idea doesn't even make sense in the first place.

First of all, he has not demonstrated how landbridges would be better than certain other means of transportation, most notably of course ships and barges.

Also, he assumes that the technology of all means of transportation remains more or less static. That is not the case. Google Beluga Skysails for one example.

Also, building those landbridges will be an enormous undertaking of resources. He expects nations to sink extreme amounts of money into something that is not proven to yield any kind of certain benefits.

He also assumes that mankind will be able to just tap into the resource-rich siberia. If it was that easy, one has to wonder why noone has already done so.

Nevermind the fact that the construction of landbridges will also cause massive ecological damage, something that is definitely not needed anymore.

And those are just general problems. I am sure if one would look into the specific details, more would pop up.

[K. A. Pital]

First of all, he has not demonstrated how landbridges would be better than certain other means of transportation, most notably of course ships and barges.

He's a nut. Don't expect much other than ravings from him. There's a fact that bulk naval transport is the cheapest and most efficient for large naval shores, like Russia, China and Europe do (Russian and China have a common shore, and Europe and Russia have two common shores: Baltic and the Mediterranean).

He also assumes that mankind will be able to just tap into the resource-rich siberia.

It already did actually. Moreover, why should Russia grant priority access to Siberian resources to anyone but itself? Because the First World wants to own them? No, won't fly.

[Thanas]

He also assumes that mankind will be able to just tap into the resource-rich siberia.

It already did actually. Moreover, why should Russia grant priority access to Siberian resources to anyone but itself? Because the First World wants to own them? No, won't fly.

No, what he is talking about is actually much more than the current scale. He seems to be one of those guys who only see Siberia as an easily accessible resource gold mine, with its riches ripe for the taking. His solution for every problem like oild dependancy and mineral shortages seems to be "Just tap Siberia".

Or at least that is the impression I get from reading the "writings" of his butt-ugly wife.

[Uraniun235]

He has a youth movement which is pretty crazy as well.