Talk:Eurasian Land-Bridge

message: ...due to the edit war going on. BCorr|Брайен 17:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protected... 

message: In my opinion the Lyndon LaRouche intiative regarding the Eurasian Land-Bridge is original research by Lyndon LaRouche and thus subject to deletion. Fred Bauder 23:29, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
:I have tried looking into it a bit too. The lack of references from authoritative sources connecting LaRouche with the Eurasian Land-Bridge indicates that there is no real connection. So I think it this article should be deleted/redirected to Asian Highway, or a page put up stating LaRouche has no involvement, and then linking to Asian Highway. Thue | talk 08:48, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Attn. Fred and Thue: I have found references to the Eurasian Land-Bridge proposal on the web, in press accounts from Hong Kong , India  and  , and Japan . None of these media are affiliated with LaRouche, so how do you reconcile this with your view that it is "original research"? And Thue, LaRouche and his colleagues have been promoting this proposal all over the world for 12 years. If it is your belief that LaRouche has "no involvement," please tell me who the real author of the proposal is. Weed Harper 20:09, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: The Asian Highway Project is expected to link Singapore with New Delhi via Kuala Lumpur, Ho Chi Minh City, Phnom Penh, Bangkok, Vientiane, Chiang Mai, Yangon, Mandalay, Tamu, Dhaka and Calcutta. India has already completed work on the 150-kilometer road from Tamu to Kalemyo in Myanmar. This would ultimately form part of the more ambitious Eurasian Land Bridge spanning the continents (Weed's Asia Times link)
This doesn't sound to me like the Asian Highway and Eurasian Land-Bridge are different projects. It also contradicts Herschel's claim above about the nature of the proposed landbridge as being a "highway, not a grid of high speed rail" doesn't seem to be a problem. 
Weed, you are correct, those sources are not affiliated with LaRouche. They also do not *mention* LaRouche as having anything to do with the project and describe the project as something far from what LaRouche says it is or what you claimed in your version of the article. Also note that the dates mentioned in your third reference significantly precede the date you say LaRouche "conceived" of the project. *That* is the problem. Your version of the article is a fantasy first of all, second of all two of your articles state that the AH is part and parcel of a possible Eurasian Land-Bridge supporting the decision to redirect to Asian Highway. AndyL 20:24, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: I find your logic to be faulty. You are saying that the part (Asian Highway) is the same thing as the whole (Land Bridge). Also, I looked at the dates mentioned in my third reference Japan Railway and Transport Review, and I find no date that references the origin of the Landbridge proposal - they all refer to specific rail line links and construction. I also find no reference in any of the articles to an author of the proposal, so if you claim that these articles are evidence that LaRouche is not the author, your logic is bad and self-serving. Tell us who you think the real author is, if it is not LaRouche. Weed Harper 21:12, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Tell us who you think the real author is, if it is not LaRouche
The UN in the 1950s. AndyL 05:59, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: And your evidence for this assertion? --Herschelkrustofsky 10:38, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research