China may build an undersea train to America

[Ideologue]

The plot involves rogue elements of the communist Chinese army who use fantastic burrowing machines in an effort to place atomic bombs under major U.S. cities. The U.S. Navy sends troops underground to combat them. The film has been described as "deliriously paranoid"

SOLD.

[derspiess]

The plot involves rogue elements of the communist Chinese army who use fantastic burrowing machines in an effort to place atomic bombs under major U.S. cities. The U.S. Navy sends troops underground to combat them. The film has been described as "deliriously paranoid"

SOLD.

Brilliant film, from the twilight if the Era of Casting White People in Chinese Roles.

[Ed Anger]

The plot involves rogue elements of the communist Chinese army who use fantastic burrowing machines in an effort to place atomic bombs under major U.S. cities. The U.S. Navy sends troops underground to combat them. The film has been described as "deliriously paranoid"

SOLD.

Brilliant film, from the twilight if the Era of Casting White People in Chinese Roles.

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/2291xk/the-jeselnik-offensive-which-kind-of-asian-is-this-

NSFW

[Razgovory]

A tunnel from nowhere to nowhere.  I may be wrong here, but I was under the impression that the English Channel Tunnel has been an economic failure.

In the beginning yes, since Maggie would not allow any public monies to fund it so they had to rely too much on banks and stock markets. Not anymore, following restructuring with small shareholders getting their savings wiped out.
Some over optimistic forecasting and rising security issues did not help as well.

Did it ever actually break even?  Has the money gained actually equaled the money spent both private and public?

[crazy canuck]

  Old idea.

I was trying to think of the title of that movie.

[Duque de Bragança]

A tunnel from nowhere to nowhere.  I may be wrong here, but I was under the impression that the English Channel Tunnel has been an economic failure.

In the beginning yes, since Maggie would not allow any public monies to fund it so they had to rely too much on banks and stock markets. Not anymore, following restructuring with small shareholders getting their savings wiped out.
Some over optimistic forecasting and rising security issues did not help as well.

Did it ever actually break even?  Has the money gained actually equaled the money spent both private and public?

Tunnel opened for business in 1994. First profits made in 2007, much longer than expected indeed.
No public money was spent as I said. 100 million euro benefit in 2013 and they are on a buying spree (ferries freight services).
Of course, the tunnel cost like 12.5 billion euros so your severe criteria are not met. I still think it was worth it, not only for denying the island status of Britain.

[Ideologue]

I still think it was worth it, not only for denying the island status of Britain.

I feel the Heer might be in for a surprise when they try to invade through the Chunnel.

[KRonn]

This little tunnel is no big deal. I'll be impressed when they build a train tunnel from mainland China to the US west coast.  Now that there will be a tunnel!! Call it the ChUSel! China US tunnel!   

[Ed Anger]

I still think it was worth it, not only for denying the island status of Britain.

I feel the Heer might be in for a surprise when they try to invade through the Chunnel.

All 5 of them.

[derspiess]

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/2291xk/the-jeselnik-offensive-which-kind-of-asian-is-this-

NSFW

Actually pretty safe for my workplace.

[Razgovory]

A tunnel from nowhere to nowhere.  I may be wrong here, but I was under the impression that the English Channel Tunnel has been an economic failure.

In the beginning yes, since Maggie would not allow any public monies to fund it so they had to rely too much on banks and stock markets. Not anymore, following restructuring with small shareholders getting their savings wiped out.
Some over optimistic forecasting and rising security issues did not help as well.

Did it ever actually break even?  Has the money gained actually equaled the money spent both private and public?

Tunnel opened for business in 1994. First profits made in 2007, much longer than expected indeed.
No public money was spent as I said. 100 million euro benefit in 2013 and they are on a buying spree (ferries freight services).
Of course, the tunnel cost like 12.5 billion euros so your severe criteria are not met. I still think it was worth it, not only for denying the island status of Britain.

No public money was spent?  I was under the impression there were subsidies, and I don't think breaking even is a severe criteria.  So it's been in operation for 20 years and still hasn't even broken even?  That doesn't sound like a success.

[Ideologue]

The interstate highway system has been operating for decades on a substantial loss.

[Duque de Bragança]

No public money was spent?  I was under the impression there were subsidies, and I don't think breaking even is a severe criteria.  So it's been in operation for 20 years and still hasn't even broken even?  That doesn't sound like a success.

Your severe criteria as in "the money gained equaled the money spent both private and public" (sic). How much do you value Britain being linked to the mainland for trains and cars with storms in the Channel no longer isolating Britain from the Continent?
Your impression is just an impression as The tunnel was financed partly from investment by shareholders and partly from £8bn of debt.

No government money was invested in the building of the tunnel,

http://web.archive.org/web/20101123153410/http://www.eurotunnel.com/ukcP3Main/ukcCorporate/ukcTunnelInfrastructure/ukcDevelopment/ukpHistory
That's from a not so recent criticism of the tunnel.

[mongers]

No public money was spent?  I was under the impression there were subsidies, and I don't think breaking even is a severe criteria.  So it's been in operation for 20 years and still hasn't even broken even?  That doesn't sound like a success.

Your severe criteria as in "the money gained equaled the money spent both private and public" (sic). How much do you value Britain being linked to the mainland for trains and cars with storms in the Channel no longer isolating the Continent from the Britain?
Your impression is just an impression as The tunnel was financed partly from investment by shareholders and partly from £8bn of debt.

No government money was invested in the building of the tunnel,

http://web.archive.org/web/20101123153410/http://www.eurotunnel.com/ukcP3Main/ukcCorporate/ukcTunnelInfrastructure/ukcDevelopment/ukpHistory
That's from a not so recent criticism of the tunnel.

FYP.

[Jaron]