|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On March 14 2023 22:31 JimmiC wrote:DeSantis os alligning himself with Trump and the far right MAGA crowd with the Russian invaison. Expect a lot of insults and "woke wars" if it enss up these two not going to be much policy differnce. All the Reps that think Biden has not gone far enough are not going to prefer DenSantis. Show nested quote +“While the U.S. has many vital national interests — securing our borders, addressing the crisis of readiness with our military, achieving energy security and independence, and checking the economic, cultural and military power of the Chinese Communist Party — becoming further entangled in a territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia is not one of them,” Mr. DeSantis said in a statement that Mr. Carlson read aloud on his show. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/13/us/politics/ron-desantis-ukraine-tucker-carlson.html
Everyone take note of your reasonable right wing friends current perspectives on Ukraine and watch how they completely flip after a few months of being told this is the anti-lib perspective.
|
To be clear, there's nothing inherently wrong with arguing that America should essentially make concessions regarding Ukraine and save money for dealing with internal issues and countering the rise of China.
This has to be weighed against the downsides of reducing or stopping support of Ukraine. Such reasons may include losing support among allies, the risk of further escalation by Russia in Europe, and emboldened Chinese action in Taiwan and beyond. It might be obvious to many that it is worth the money to see Russia fail in its objectives, but it is not a given and does deserve to be debated instead of dismissed.
|
On March 15 2023 14:14 gobbledydook wrote:
To be clear, there's nothing inherently wrong with arguing that America should essentially make concessions regarding Ukraine and save money for dealing with internal issues and countering the rise of China.
This has to be weighed against the downsides of reducing or stopping support of Ukraine. Such reasons may include losing support among allies, the risk of further escalation by Russia in Europe, and emboldened Chinese action in Taiwan and beyond. It might be obvious to many that it is worth the money to see Russia fail in its objectives, but it is not a given and does deserve to be debated instead of dismissed.
Sure, but that discussion shouldn't really take more than 30 seconds.
It is very clear and obvious, what the ethical path in this situation is. That ethical path also aligns very clearly with americas rational self-interest.
Should i cut off my finger and place them in the oven as nice snacks?
We really need to weigh the pros and cons here. There is a huge advantage in having a nice tasty snack available. On the other hand there are some slight cons with pain and not being able to grip things anymore.
|
On March 15 2023 14:14 gobbledydook wrote:
To be clear, there's nothing inherently wrong with arguing that America should essentially make concessions regarding Ukraine and save money for dealing with internal issues and countering the rise of China.
This has to be weighed against the downsides of reducing or stopping support of Ukraine. Such reasons may include losing support among allies, the risk of further escalation by Russia in Europe, and emboldened Chinese action in Taiwan and beyond. It might be obvious to many that it is worth the money to see Russia fail in its objectives, but it is not a given and does deserve to be debated instead of dismissed.
The benefits of Russia being effectively eliminated as a world power make it an amazing investment. This isn't charity.
|
|
|
On March 15 2023 14:24 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2023 14:14 gobbledydook wrote:
To be clear, there's nothing inherently wrong with arguing that America should essentially make concessions regarding Ukraine and save money for dealing with internal issues and countering the rise of China.
This has to be weighed against the downsides of reducing or stopping support of Ukraine. Such reasons may include losing support among allies, the risk of further escalation by Russia in Europe, and emboldened Chinese action in Taiwan and beyond. It might be obvious to many that it is worth the money to see Russia fail in its objectives, but it is not a given and does deserve to be debated instead of dismissed.
Sure, but that discussion shouldn't really take more than 30 seconds. It is very clear and obvious, what the ethical path in this situation is. That ethical path also aligns very clearly with americas rational self-interest. Should i cut off my finger and place them in the oven as nice snacks? We really need to weigh the pros and cons here. There is a huge advantage in having a nice tasty snack available. On the other hand there are some slight cons with pain and not being able to grip things anymore.
You cannot run foreign policy using ethics. National interest trumps everything else. If ethics was important, the Saudis would have been sanctioned a long time ago.
The national interest in defeating Russia I have described already. It has a cost. The U.S. is losing money supporting Ukraine. It is entirely valid to suggest that the money could be spent elsewhere with a greater return on national interest. Whether that turns out to be true is a different story, but it deserves debate.
For all it is worth I don't agree with the proposition that it isn't worth the money to support Ukraine. The benefits of showing solidarity with allies and deterrence would be worth more than the U.S. having to fight a China Russia axis sooner.
EDIT:
It's also important to note that this isn't the battle for Berlin. Even if the Russians were pushed out of Ukraine in its entirety, Russia would not cease to be a hostile nuclear armed power. Chances that Putin would be replaced by a pro-Western leader are likely slim.
|
United States43905 Posts
The US has underwritten the cost of keeping Europe free from Russian imperialism through NATO. If Russia were to continue then the best case scenario would be the need for a massive US deployment in Eastern Europe as a credible deterrent, worst case would be a shooting war. Arming the Ukrainians to stop Russian imperialism is relieving a trillion dollar obligation with billions of equipment that is already paid for. Best investment anyone could imagine.
|
On March 15 2023 23:26 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2023 14:24 Simberto wrote:On March 15 2023 14:14 gobbledydook wrote:
To be clear, there's nothing inherently wrong with arguing that America should essentially make concessions regarding Ukraine and save money for dealing with internal issues and countering the rise of China.
This has to be weighed against the downsides of reducing or stopping support of Ukraine. Such reasons may include losing support among allies, the risk of further escalation by Russia in Europe, and emboldened Chinese action in Taiwan and beyond. It might be obvious to many that it is worth the money to see Russia fail in its objectives, but it is not a given and does deserve to be debated instead of dismissed.
Sure, but that discussion shouldn't really take more than 30 seconds. It is very clear and obvious, what the ethical path in this situation is. That ethical path also aligns very clearly with americas rational self-interest. Should i cut off my finger and place them in the oven as nice snacks? We really need to weigh the pros and cons here. There is a huge advantage in having a nice tasty snack available. On the other hand there are some slight cons with pain and not being able to grip things anymore. You cannot run foreign policy using ethics. National interest trumps everything else. If ethics was important, the Saudis would have been sanctioned a long time ago. The national interest in defeating Russia I have described already. It has a cost. The U.S. is losing money supporting Ukraine. It is entirely valid to suggest that the money could be spent elsewhere with a greater return on national interest. Whether that turns out to be true is a different story, but it deserves debate. For all it is worth I don't agree with the proposition that it isn't worth the money to support Ukraine. The benefits of showing solidarity with allies and deterrence would be worth more than the U.S. having to fight a China Russia axis sooner. EDIT: It's also important to note that this isn't the battle for Berlin. Even if the Russians were pushed out of Ukraine in its entirety, Russia would not cease to be a hostile nuclear armed power. Chances that Putin would be replaced by a pro-Western leader are likely slim. How much money is the US actually spending on Ukraine tho? Not the amount in aid send but in actual spending that would otherwise not have happened. Shipping IFV's to Ukraine instead of desert storage doesn't actually cost much more money.
And how much is the US earning off of all the new tanks that countries are ordering to replace their old stock that has been send to Ukraine?
|
On March 15 2023 23:26 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2023 14:24 Simberto wrote:On March 15 2023 14:14 gobbledydook wrote:
To be clear, there's nothing inherently wrong with arguing that America should essentially make concessions regarding Ukraine and save money for dealing with internal issues and countering the rise of China.
This has to be weighed against the downsides of reducing or stopping support of Ukraine. Such reasons may include losing support among allies, the risk of further escalation by Russia in Europe, and emboldened Chinese action in Taiwan and beyond. It might be obvious to many that it is worth the money to see Russia fail in its objectives, but it is not a given and does deserve to be debated instead of dismissed.
Sure, but that discussion shouldn't really take more than 30 seconds. It is very clear and obvious, what the ethical path in this situation is. That ethical path also aligns very clearly with americas rational self-interest. Should i cut off my finger and place them in the oven as nice snacks? We really need to weigh the pros and cons here. There is a huge advantage in having a nice tasty snack available. On the other hand there are some slight cons with pain and not being able to grip things anymore. You cannot run foreign policy using ethics. National interest trumps everything else. If ethics was important, the Saudis would have been sanctioned a long time ago. The national interest in defeating Russia I have described already. It has a cost. The U.S. is losing money supporting Ukraine. It is entirely valid to suggest that the money could be spent elsewhere with a greater return on national interest. Whether that turns out to be true is a different story, but it deserves debate. For all it is worth I don't agree with the proposition that it isn't worth the money to support Ukraine. The benefits of showing solidarity with allies and deterrence would be worth more than the U.S. having to fight a China Russia axis sooner. EDIT: It's also important to note that this isn't the battle for Berlin. Even if the Russians were pushed out of Ukraine in its entirety, Russia would not cease to be a hostile nuclear armed power. Chances that Putin would be replaced by a pro-Western leader are likely slim.
This is an idealistic scenario, but we are being plainly shown why reality is not idealistic. It would be great if all the money spent on a military could instead just feed the poor and advance technology. But we have very recent data which indicates Russia is firmly committed to expanding their borders. And it is well understood why they need to in order to remain competitive. In a world where there is no military conflict, it does not make sense to spend money on military conflict.
When you say the US is "losing money" supporting Ukraine, that can only be true if we assume there is no cost associated with not supporting Ukraine. But that is not true. The cost of Russia gaining Ukraine is enormous and would require significantly more military investment to respond to than simply helping Ukraine.
The mistake you are making is assuming there is a way for everything to be great and also free. But that is not true. There are times when spending money now to save money later makes sense. Its essentially the same situation as getting the oil changed in your car. You pay $50 today so that you don't have to replace a $5000 engine later. You can't just decide against both of those. You gotta choose one. If you don't change the oil, the engine is gonna break.
|
On March 16 2023 03:30 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2023 23:26 gobbledydook wrote:On March 15 2023 14:24 Simberto wrote:On March 15 2023 14:14 gobbledydook wrote:
To be clear, there's nothing inherently wrong with arguing that America should essentially make concessions regarding Ukraine and save money for dealing with internal issues and countering the rise of China.
This has to be weighed against the downsides of reducing or stopping support of Ukraine. Such reasons may include losing support among allies, the risk of further escalation by Russia in Europe, and emboldened Chinese action in Taiwan and beyond. It might be obvious to many that it is worth the money to see Russia fail in its objectives, but it is not a given and does deserve to be debated instead of dismissed.
Sure, but that discussion shouldn't really take more than 30 seconds. It is very clear and obvious, what the ethical path in this situation is. That ethical path also aligns very clearly with americas rational self-interest. Should i cut off my finger and place them in the oven as nice snacks? We really need to weigh the pros and cons here. There is a huge advantage in having a nice tasty snack available. On the other hand there are some slight cons with pain and not being able to grip things anymore. You cannot run foreign policy using ethics. National interest trumps everything else. If ethics was important, the Saudis would have been sanctioned a long time ago. The national interest in defeating Russia I have described already. It has a cost. The U.S. is losing money supporting Ukraine. It is entirely valid to suggest that the money could be spent elsewhere with a greater return on national interest. Whether that turns out to be true is a different story, but it deserves debate. For all it is worth I don't agree with the proposition that it isn't worth the money to support Ukraine. The benefits of showing solidarity with allies and deterrence would be worth more than the U.S. having to fight a China Russia axis sooner. EDIT: It's also important to note that this isn't the battle for Berlin. Even if the Russians were pushed out of Ukraine in its entirety, Russia would not cease to be a hostile nuclear armed power. Chances that Putin would be replaced by a pro-Western leader are likely slim. This is an idealistic scenario, but we are being plainly shown why reality is not idealistic. It would be great if all the money spent on a military could instead just feed the poor and advance technology. But we have very recent data which indicates Russia is firmly committed to expanding their borders. And it is well understood why they need to in order to remain competitive. In a world where there is no military conflict, it does not make sense to spend money on military conflict. When you say the US is "losing money" supporting Ukraine, that can only be true if we assume there is no cost associated with not supporting Ukraine. But that is not true. The cost of Russia gaining Ukraine is enormous and would require significantly more military investment to respond to than simply helping Ukraine. The mistake you are making is assuming there is a way for everything to be great and also free. But that is not true. There are times when spending money now to save money later makes sense. Its essentially the same situation as getting the oil changed in your car. You pay $50 today so that you don't have to replace a $5000 engine later. You can't just decide against both of those. You gotta choose one. If you don't change the oil, the engine is gonna break.
I'm happy that someone is making this argument. Ideally, those politicians in support of continued support would offer estimates of the cost of these trade-offs. For example, it would cost X billion a year extra to defend NATO, and why the Europeans could not cover the cost etc.
|
|
|
If people really want to keep Republicans on board with supporting Ukraine (particularly with weapons) just remind them that the guns the US is sending also go to people that think like this
(EuromaidenPR twitter saying Zelynskyy wasn't invited to the Oscars because he was white)
+ Show Spoiler +
Which is right up Republican's alley as demonstrated by the "anti-woke" crowd picking it up and running with it (tweet from "EndWokeness" repeats the claim)
If people want to keep Republicans supportive of Ukraine they can't ignore such synergy. Hell, you might even convince some of them to send their own guns over reducing the number of guns in the US, if it's done clever enough. Ukrainians are fighting the fight against "wokeism" and Republicans have a responsibility to help them if they ever want to win it here.
|
On March 16 2023 08:07 GreenHorizons wrote:If people really want to keep Republicans on board with supporting Ukraine (particularly with weapons) just remind them that the guns the US is sending also go to people that think like this + Show Spoiler +(EuromaidenPR twitter saying Zelynskyy wasn't invited to the Oscars because he was white) + Show Spoiler +Which is right up Republican's alley as demonstrated by the "anti-woke" crowd picking it up and running with it (tweet from "EndWokeness" repeats the claim) https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1634294254360047618If people want to keep Republicans supportive of Ukraine they can't ignore such synergy. Hell, you might even convince some of them to send their own guns over reducing the number of guns in the US, if it's done clever enough. Ukrainians are fighting the fight against "wokeism" and Republicans have a responsibility to help them if they ever want to win it here.
The guns also go to people that run anti-woke twitter accounts? Or are you saying the Zelensky/Ukraine also think like those anti-woke tweets?
|
On March 16 2023 06:56 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2023 06:33 gobbledydook wrote:On March 16 2023 03:30 Mohdoo wrote:On March 15 2023 23:26 gobbledydook wrote:On March 15 2023 14:24 Simberto wrote:On March 15 2023 14:14 gobbledydook wrote:
To be clear, there's nothing inherently wrong with arguing that America should essentially make concessions regarding Ukraine and save money for dealing with internal issues and countering the rise of China.
This has to be weighed against the downsides of reducing or stopping support of Ukraine. Such reasons may include losing support among allies, the risk of further escalation by Russia in Europe, and emboldened Chinese action in Taiwan and beyond. It might be obvious to many that it is worth the money to see Russia fail in its objectives, but it is not a given and does deserve to be debated instead of dismissed.
Sure, but that discussion shouldn't really take more than 30 seconds. It is very clear and obvious, what the ethical path in this situation is. That ethical path also aligns very clearly with americas rational self-interest. Should i cut off my finger and place them in the oven as nice snacks? We really need to weigh the pros and cons here. There is a huge advantage in having a nice tasty snack available. On the other hand there are some slight cons with pain and not being able to grip things anymore. You cannot run foreign policy using ethics. National interest trumps everything else. If ethics was important, the Saudis would have been sanctioned a long time ago. The national interest in defeating Russia I have described already. It has a cost. The U.S. is losing money supporting Ukraine. It is entirely valid to suggest that the money could be spent elsewhere with a greater return on national interest. Whether that turns out to be true is a different story, but it deserves debate. For all it is worth I don't agree with the proposition that it isn't worth the money to support Ukraine. The benefits of showing solidarity with allies and deterrence would be worth more than the U.S. having to fight a China Russia axis sooner. EDIT: It's also important to note that this isn't the battle for Berlin. Even if the Russians were pushed out of Ukraine in its entirety, Russia would not cease to be a hostile nuclear armed power. Chances that Putin would be replaced by a pro-Western leader are likely slim. This is an idealistic scenario, but we are being plainly shown why reality is not idealistic. It would be great if all the money spent on a military could instead just feed the poor and advance technology. But we have very recent data which indicates Russia is firmly committed to expanding their borders. And it is well understood why they need to in order to remain competitive. In a world where there is no military conflict, it does not make sense to spend money on military conflict. When you say the US is "losing money" supporting Ukraine, that can only be true if we assume there is no cost associated with not supporting Ukraine. But that is not true. The cost of Russia gaining Ukraine is enormous and would require significantly more military investment to respond to than simply helping Ukraine. The mistake you are making is assuming there is a way for everything to be great and also free. But that is not true. There are times when spending money now to save money later makes sense. Its essentially the same situation as getting the oil changed in your car. You pay $50 today so that you don't have to replace a $5000 engine later. You can't just decide against both of those. You gotta choose one. If you don't change the oil, the engine is gonna break. I'm happy that someone is making this argument. Ideally, those politicians in support of continued support would offer estimates of the cost of these trade-offs. For example, it would cost X billion a year extra to defend NATO, and why the Europeans could not cover the cost etc. You really think they are not? Im sure it has been mathed with all sorts of different scenarios and tons of factors we can not even think about. It is wildly naive to think that everyone is basing this purely on what they think is the "right thing" to do. Id be flabbergasted if that was actually the top motivation for even 10% of people. If it was they would have stepped in all over the world weekly. It is just that publically saying it is the right thing to do is such an easy answer that everyone who does not get their news from Russian propagandaists agrees. I wish doing the right thing was a top motivation for governments.
If such analysis was mathed out, why can no one here provide any such analysis?
|
On March 16 2023 08:28 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2023 08:07 GreenHorizons wrote:If people really want to keep Republicans on board with supporting Ukraine (particularly with weapons) just remind them that the guns the US is sending also go to people that think like this + Show Spoiler +(EuromaidenPR twitter saying Zelynskyy wasn't invited to the Oscars because he was white) + Show Spoiler +Which is right up Republican's alley as demonstrated by the "anti-woke" crowd picking it up and running with it (tweet from "EndWokeness" repeats the claim) https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1634294254360047618If people want to keep Republicans supportive of Ukraine they can't ignore such synergy. Hell, you might even convince some of them to send their own guns over reducing the number of guns in the US, if it's done clever enough. Ukrainians are fighting the fight against "wokeism" and Republicans have a responsibility to help them if they ever want to win it here. The guns also go to people that run anti-woke twitter accounts? Or are you saying the Zelensky/Ukraine also think like those anti-woke tweets?
I'm essentially saying that some Ukrainians were upset by "Hollywood hypocrisy" in a way that synergizes with the anti-woke crowd that I think could be harvested for support towards Ukraine from culture war Republicans.
Not by someone like myself, but by a Tucker Carlson type looking for an angle.
|
United States43905 Posts
On March 16 2023 09:42 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2023 06:56 JimmiC wrote:On March 16 2023 06:33 gobbledydook wrote:On March 16 2023 03:30 Mohdoo wrote:On March 15 2023 23:26 gobbledydook wrote:On March 15 2023 14:24 Simberto wrote:On March 15 2023 14:14 gobbledydook wrote:
To be clear, there's nothing inherently wrong with arguing that America should essentially make concessions regarding Ukraine and save money for dealing with internal issues and countering the rise of China.
This has to be weighed against the downsides of reducing or stopping support of Ukraine. Such reasons may include losing support among allies, the risk of further escalation by Russia in Europe, and emboldened Chinese action in Taiwan and beyond. It might be obvious to many that it is worth the money to see Russia fail in its objectives, but it is not a given and does deserve to be debated instead of dismissed.
Sure, but that discussion shouldn't really take more than 30 seconds. It is very clear and obvious, what the ethical path in this situation is. That ethical path also aligns very clearly with americas rational self-interest. Should i cut off my finger and place them in the oven as nice snacks? We really need to weigh the pros and cons here. There is a huge advantage in having a nice tasty snack available. On the other hand there are some slight cons with pain and not being able to grip things anymore. You cannot run foreign policy using ethics. National interest trumps everything else. If ethics was important, the Saudis would have been sanctioned a long time ago. The national interest in defeating Russia I have described already. It has a cost. The U.S. is losing money supporting Ukraine. It is entirely valid to suggest that the money could be spent elsewhere with a greater return on national interest. Whether that turns out to be true is a different story, but it deserves debate. For all it is worth I don't agree with the proposition that it isn't worth the money to support Ukraine. The benefits of showing solidarity with allies and deterrence would be worth more than the U.S. having to fight a China Russia axis sooner. EDIT: It's also important to note that this isn't the battle for Berlin. Even if the Russians were pushed out of Ukraine in its entirety, Russia would not cease to be a hostile nuclear armed power. Chances that Putin would be replaced by a pro-Western leader are likely slim. This is an idealistic scenario, but we are being plainly shown why reality is not idealistic. It would be great if all the money spent on a military could instead just feed the poor and advance technology. But we have very recent data which indicates Russia is firmly committed to expanding their borders. And it is well understood why they need to in order to remain competitive. In a world where there is no military conflict, it does not make sense to spend money on military conflict. When you say the US is "losing money" supporting Ukraine, that can only be true if we assume there is no cost associated with not supporting Ukraine. But that is not true. The cost of Russia gaining Ukraine is enormous and would require significantly more military investment to respond to than simply helping Ukraine. The mistake you are making is assuming there is a way for everything to be great and also free. But that is not true. There are times when spending money now to save money later makes sense. Its essentially the same situation as getting the oil changed in your car. You pay $50 today so that you don't have to replace a $5000 engine later. You can't just decide against both of those. You gotta choose one. If you don't change the oil, the engine is gonna break. I'm happy that someone is making this argument. Ideally, those politicians in support of continued support would offer estimates of the cost of these trade-offs. For example, it would cost X billion a year extra to defend NATO, and why the Europeans could not cover the cost etc. You really think they are not? Im sure it has been mathed with all sorts of different scenarios and tons of factors we can not even think about. It is wildly naive to think that everyone is basing this purely on what they think is the "right thing" to do. Id be flabbergasted if that was actually the top motivation for even 10% of people. If it was they would have stepped in all over the world weekly. It is just that publically saying it is the right thing to do is such an easy answer that everyone who does not get their news from Russian propagandaists agrees. I wish doing the right thing was a top motivation for governments. If such analysis was mathed out, why can no one here provide any such analysis?
I’ll help out. The cost of a potential conflict with Russia multiplied by the delta in probability of that taking place between Russia conquering Ukraine vs being defeated in Ukraine is greater than the cost of helping Ukraine. That’s because the first number is extremely high.
|
|
|
I would think the public would deserve to know at least what the ballpark of the tradeoff would be. Of course it would be unreasonable to get a detailed breakdown.
Right now there's only vague claims and moral platitudes, and the public deserve better.
|
On March 16 2023 15:37 gobbledydook wrote:
I would think the public would deserve to know at least what the ballpark of the tradeoff would be. Of course it would be unreasonable to get a detailed breakdown.
Right now there's only vague claims and moral platitudes, and the public deserve better.
Do you really need a cost analysis of sending old equipment to an ally Vs having to fight a war yourself? Really? Just look up how much it cost to send troops and fight in the middle east.
|
In the last +/- year the US has sent about 33 billion in aid to Ukraine, most of which was material that was already bought and paid for and was sitting in storage. The real cost of that 33 billion is going to be quite a bit lower, because a) that money was already spent and the material was mostly going unused and b) US allies are replenishing their own stocks by ordering from the US.
The war in Afghanistan, for contrast, cost around 400 billion per year.
It's really not hard to see the cost/benefit falling in favour of sending unused tanks to Ukraine, and we don't exactly need classified information to get there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FrO7DnNacAAdAb2?format=jpg&name=large)
