HOME | DD
tanikel —
Saying Goodbye
Published: 2013-10-25 13:15:32 +0000 UTC; Views: 33162; Favourites: 1396; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
131021-A-VB845-082U.S. Army Spc. Sara Wakai bids farewell to her husband and son in front of the 55th Signal Company
(Combat Camera) company area at Fort Meade, Md., Oct. 21, 2013. The Soldiers are deploying
to Afghanistan to support Special Operations during Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan to
capture, edit, and transmit high definition video and still imagery. (U.S. Army photo by
Sgt. Kristina Truluck/Released)
I think that the image speaks for itself. Wakai was one of my Soldiers until this team took her.
She's on her way to do some amazing things.
Featured:
DVIDS Facebook Page | Best of October 2013 | Feature Friday #6 | Feature Vol. 11
Best of November | Comment Month: November Conclusion! | People - A Feature | 40 Best Examples of Photojournalism
My military imagery is available for public domain. As the photographer, I don't have control over
how you may use it, but I ask that it be done with respect to the individuals represented here.
Related content
Comments: 393
This is such a beautiful, meaningful picture
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
This is so touching. A beautiful image and perfect timing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Not to war but to many field problems over 7 years in the Army.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ah, gotcha. Either way, it's still hard leaving family behind.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's true it is not. I missed my babies first word and many other important mile stones in my children's first few years.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
My father was with the army. It is hard for me to watch/hear some anti-war campaigners (not a big fan of war, insurgency and conflict and colonialism myself) insult women and men in uniform. Lack of critical thinking, I call it. This is a beautiful picture and I hope she comes home safe.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I know this comment, but I am sick of ignorant, narrow-minded thought-policing things like that and the person below you, tanikel . People have every right to insult people who think they are better than other people because they wear a different uniform. People have a right to insult and hate people who kill, and with such cowardly weapons like guns, especially sniper rifle (if you are going to try to kill someone, the only way not to be a psychopath is in self-defence, and in a way that the opponent has the chance to fight back, to defend themselves, to attack and attempt to kill you). Grenades and bombs (and fighter planes) are the ultimate in cowardly, immoral, disgusting weaponry and combat.
At least an older ranged weapon, the bow, actually takes skill.
Not to mention there is the sheer arrogance that merely being a soldier makes one a 'hero'. Soldiers are not heroes, and never will be. They are doing a job they chose to do, a dangerous job, yes, but there are plenty of dangerous jobs, no one is called a 'hero' for doing those ones.
However, picketing their funerals is disgusting (but I hate that insulting a soldier's death is seen as some great crime compared to insulting anyone else's procession), as it would for any funeral.
Then there is people being insulted for not caring about their deaths. I pity their family, yes, as, at the end of the day, they lost a loved one, but unless they are a medic defending themselves, it is highly likely that they have killed other people, and most definitely have used the previously mentioned cowardly weapons.
And don't get me started on the people who say, "they are out there, protecting you! Show some respect!". No, they are not 'protecting' me, as I am a modern, adult woman who does not need 'protection', especially not from some masculine, gun-wielding, jingoist men. The women are just as bad, but at least them (or their families) thinking they are 'protecting' people like me are not using archaic thought. And even then, when I say this, people still say that they are 'protecting' me and don't need to be asked.
Second from last, we have the fact that people (no, men), are forced to sign up and serve, whether they want to, or not, and if they do not want to, they are seen as a terrible person who does not value their country. My own great-grandfather was a conscientious objector who was forced to fight in WWII. Being the strong man he was, he tore the union jack from his uniform (I'll gladly die before I call myself 'British', or support the British, and American, armies) and refused to accept his medals, not wanting to be praised for killing. And of course, he was insulted for it, by people of his time and by ignorant teenagers of today. They said, "So, he was not proud of killing Nazies"? No, he was not, as the Nazies were not evil, the majority were scared, brainwashed, or desperate.
My grandfather joined the military willingly, but he understands, even supports, my views.
While it is nothing compared to what I have seen and read of other people's suffering at the hands of such scum, my family has been fucked over by the military for generations. It comes with being Scottish, and having some Irish members too. Which reminds me, the Scots and true Irish (the republicans), not the British people who call themselves Irish (the northerners), who join the army are an insult to our nationalities, our histories, our cultures. They do not deserve to be called Scottish or Irish. As with the 'no', voters, if they love England and being British so much, they should fuck off to England (I know it would be a majority 'no' anyway, because of selfish, fearful, stupid cunts - and most of those cunts were old, middle-class or outright rich, which is very telling).
I do not have anything against being English or British in general, just the selfishness, patriotism (or, again, jingoism) that comes with it.
That brings me to my final point. When it comes to war, when it comes to armies,when it comes to combat in general, there is no 'good', or 'evil', there are not 'heroes' or 'villians'. As I alluded to earily, flying the colours of a certain coutry does not make you any better, any more honourable, or superior in any way, to your enemies. Both side kill, main and torture, both sides do good things, both sides have those who are willing to be there, and those who were forced, or do not know anything better.
The only difference is morals.
I have done my best to be rational, so I hope you will too, should you read all of this (I doubt you will, people on the internet tend to be lazy).
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Well, it's hard to not get defensive when you're calling someone ignorant and making assumptions about laziness (though I won't lie, I can be pretty lazy, sometimes my bed is waaay too warm and it's far too cold outside).
I have no problem with people having different opinions. I choose to support the military because my husband I are in and it honestly has made our lives much better. I pretty much agree with your final point. I've seen what the Taliban do to their own people and it's absolutely disgusting. As long as people like that exist, I see no problem fighting against people like that.
I'm glad for countries that have all-volunteer military forces, it means that no one should have to be forced into joining.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I implore you to review this list and see how often your country has warred and look at who you and other Scottish people could be today if not for war and soldiers.
It's easy for you to spit on people who put their lives on their line to protect their country and way of life when you live a sheltered life in a country that hasn't had to fight it's own wars since 1307. After Scotland fought against the British for independence and to do what it wanted how it wanted, it essentially crawled back to Britain for protection.
If not for the military, Scotland would not be Scotland. In fact, if it had lost against the Anglo-Saxons, it would have been tangled up in Germany's mess and we all know how Germany felt about cripples and gays and the Jewish. In another time, Scotland could have been owned by Germany and you could have been alive in the 40's and gassed. You should be grateful that Britain has a military that has kept Scotland and other countries safe and the military has allowed you to live how you can.
Putting your life on the line so that other's you don't even know can be safe and happy does make somebody a hero. Keeping your country and fellow citizens safe from people like Isis who are made up of disgusting extremists who are the true cowards for killing the innocent and by your standards, for using guns. They murder people simply for not believing the same thing. At least the American and other Military's kill oppressive, murderous extremists so that people in our country can have whatever belief and opinions they want.
The military doesn't go in and kill for sport. The military is there to protect and if killing enemies is what it takes to make sure countries are safe and their goverments are safe, then that's what has to be done.
Would you rather that Isis storms into countries and slaughters more for simply not believing what they believe in? It sounds like you support terrorists.
Contrary to what you believe, "it is highly likely that they have killed other people, and most definitely have used the previously mentioned cowardly weapons." many soldiers haven't killed or even used their guns on anything living. They are there to be a presence and to intimidate the enemy. The enemy, however, such as those in the current war, have in fact used their 'cowardly' weapons and not just to defend themselves, but to slaughter the innocent and force their wants on others.
Judging by how you put your statement "it is highly likely", you're making an assumption but given your stance on the military, it's not likely a deduction based on factual information, rather an assertion based on bias.
I'm sorry but no matter how modern or adult of a woman you are, if another country invades, you will be powerless. The military does not exist solely to protect you and so it does not exist because it thinks you are not a modern adult woman. It exists because citizens cannot defend themselves against an enemy army. Even if your whole country consists of modern, adult women, it will crumble beneath the thumb of another army. To protect the countries way of existence, it needs a military. If your country were made up entirely of modern, adult women, are you saying you all would rather allow another country to invade and take over and change how you all run your country because you all have too much pride for yourselves to care for the well being of the country as a whole??
How are female soldiers not using archaic thought? Male or female, the populace still owns the idea that women need protecting. If your hypothetical country of adult, modern women existed and you all had a military, women would still join (well I mean who else would if it's all women? but bear with me) because they would know you all need protecting. If it were all men, little to no women would join because the idea that men do not need protecting. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the military doesn't exist because male soldiers think women need protecting, it exists because the whole country, male, female, black, white, asian, young, old etc, need protecting.
Your grandfather may have objected to war, but if not for the British he fought with, you all would have been in the badly defeated German ownership :T Germany would have ruled Scotland and you all would have been tangled in their Holocaust mess and destroyed by the armies that kicked Nazi ass.
I'm sure if there had been a peaceful way to resolve conflict, your grandad would have been happy to be in the military. It's the killing that's the issue.
You don't seem to understand the purpose of the military. You only understand that with being a soldier, may come killing but it is an unfortunate necessity since if soldiers don't kill, horrid scum like Isis WILL and will take control over countries and force their extremist hell on the innocent and free.
Not everybody will hold a pacifist view and those who don't, will take advantage of those who will.
I am a pacifist myself and I refuse to fight or kill (with the exception of roaches and mosquito as they are a danger to health and life) but I understand that the military is a necessity to modern civilization.
I hope you can read this with rationality and respond with rationality as well as refrain from using insults or negative adjectives, even if to establish tone. Maybe see this as a literary challenge: Debate without using negative/accusatory/subjective adjectives or verbs to set tone or emphasize a point. If I can do it, somebody who doesn't specialize in literature or writing, surely you can too.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I did not know say we did not need soldiers. We will, and war will always happen. I know it's a innate part of being human, or just being sapient (animals may war against each other, but nowhere near as much as humans, nor do they create such destructive, cowardly weapons to do so).
I have not lived a 'sheltered' life. My mother lived in Ireland during the Troubles. She saw with her own eyes the shit the Brits did to the Irish. I saw many videos and photo evidence of it too, and not just in the Troubles, either. You want bravery, you want heroism? Well, before that, I'll give some background - during the Troubles, British soldiers were stationed in the Catholic areas, under the pretence of 'protection'. However, as Brits are want to do, they instead intimidated innocent people and supressed their right to their religion and identity.
You want real bravery and heroism? Try being an unarmed civilian who stands up or just does not let, Milltary scum control and frighten them. Try being a young woman who silently stares down the barrel of a British's soldier's rifle, while your friend's children, whom you were simply taking to school, are lying on the grass next to you, sobbing in terror as another Brit has his gun aimed at them. Try standing there, in silence, not wanting to give them a rise, as they insult your religion, your nationality (she was born in Scotland, and comes from a Scottish line, but she always went to Ireland to see her grandparents, and eventually moved there, before the Troubles started) and everything about you, and trying to make you declare yourself British or Protestant (no, I'm not one of those Catholics). They did not shoot my mother, or the children, lucky woman; they just wanted a bit of 'fun'.
It was not the last time she faced a Brit's gun either. In addition, of course, she was far from the only one. I have seen videos of British police stationed in Ireland at the time beat up innocent teenagers, soldiers ransacking the houses of the elderly and vulnerable, saying they are hiding 'terrorists ' (my mother witnessed that too). Moreover, everyone knows about Bloody Sunday. Of course, when the victims were pardoned, the government said the soldiers were ‘acting out of their control’ (because shooting at unarmed civilians and a priest waving a white napkin in attempt to show he was peaceful while trying to help an injured teenager to safety is ‘acting out with their control’), instead of being mature and honest, and taking responsivity for their country’s actions.
Finally, we have loyalists attacking the funeral of IRA soldiers (the freedom fighters, not the terrorists uneducated, brainwashed idiots see them as…but “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”).
Taking up arms to use against other people with weapons, a dangerous job one choses to do is not 'heroic'. For most people (or again, just men), it is seen as a 'duty', someone one should and has to do. They are not 'heroes' any more than people who chose to be a construction worker, a sewer worker, a nuclear plant worker, and a whole host of other dangerous jobs (that are, again, mostly taken by mem, which is part of where the 'wage gap' bullshit comes in). A heroic job is being a civilian risking their life in war-torn and third world countries to help the starving and orphan, to help children who have seen the horrors of war. Being a hero is working every day to try to save those with incurable or different diseases or conditions. Being a hero is ricking your life on an uneven playing field.
That brings me to my next point - America and Britain have the biggest military power, America being the biggest. Nothing can threaten America (no matter how justified it is), and get away scott free.
Finally, while I know this is not complete evidence, this discussion also gives a good idea of why soldiers are not inherently 'heroes'.
Moving on. Scotland did not 'crawl back' to England. We are not submissive, helpless wimps. Moreover, those who willingly went back instead of seeing it as the only viable option, once again, do not deserve to be called Scottish. They denounced themselves when they decided one of our biggest enemies in history was better than us. England had (and has) a bigger army and better weapons. The only reason Scotland turn to England for aid (not 'protection') was because of that. It was either that or die.
No, we all know how Hitler and his generals felt about cripples, gays, and Jews. Even then, Hitler was a hypocrite anyway (well, everyone is a hypocrite in some respect). In addition, while I'm not saying he is not, I am fed of Hitler being considered the worst person in history. especially considering the modern evils that exist. While Hitler’s views were undoubtedly worse, Stalin did end up killing far more than him. In addition, while all the Nazis and former Nazis (I feel sorry for some of them, as they have been seen as monsters their entire lives), are seen as 'evil', and 'sick' and needing to pay, people seem to forget about a certain Unit 731. Even when people are aware of them, they do not seem to condemn them nearly as much as the Nazis.
If as Scotland would allow themselves to be so easily taken over even without England. We would fight back, even if we knew it was a lost cause. That's what brave, heroic people do.
For the first part of this paragraph (about risking your life), I have already addressed that, as you can see. At the end of the day, I am entitled to my opinion without it being seen as inherently wrong, as it does not bring harm to anyone.
Oh, and you think that the Brits and American have never killed innocent people; you think they have never killed people for having different beliefs from them? *Cough*thesouthintheAmericanCivilWarbeingthemostobivous*cough*. Once again, regardless of morals, all sides have or will commit similar acts, be it in this war or another. Besides, the so-called 'terrorists' (funny how America and Britain never admits when they are terrorists, but the biggest hypocrites in the world when it comes to the military and political and religious morals) have every right to bomb Britain and England. Things like 9/11 (even if it was done by non-Americans), 7/7, and the Paris bombings were nothing more than revenge for the armies of their countries getting their civilians killed. I am justifying their actions, not am I saying the deaths of the innocent people was invalid. I am just giving the true (but still not good) reason for the attacks (and of course, America, Britain, and now France act as if they are poor wee innocent victims).
Then again, America and Britain have pretended to be the poor wee victims of the world for most of their history (at least the Native Americans were actually victimized). Not to mention, it is always the innocent dead of America, Britain, France, etc (especially the former two) when thousands more have died overseas. Hundreds more innocents have died in Iraq and Iran than in the Paris attacks, and who gets all the attention and support (I'm going to sound like such an SJW in the next sentence)? The mostly, while, privileged (not because of skin colour), first world victims. Hell, even when there is a disaster, the news always mentions "so-and-so were British", or "including X British people", or, even worse "no British people were harmed", as it fucking matters, as if Brits have more valuable lives than anyone else, as if the other people were not just as important innocent lives that were lost.
ISIS is an exception, they are truly despicable people. However, so are the armies, for what they do and what they are. The latter is sadly a necessary evil, as I mentioned above. Once again, the difference is morals, and the reasons both sides are fighting. Let us not forget that both the American and British governments still practice torture, particularly torture for information. Also, last time I check, invading someone else's country and trying to change their views to match your own, is a form of terrorism no matter what *cough*likewhatheBritstriedtodoIrelandandAmericatovariouscoutries*cough*/
It matters not whether they have killed, they still carry guns, grenades, and have planes with bombs, along with tanks (how could I have forgotten tanks?) etc. Even if all sides use them, it does not change how easy, how immoral, how dishonourable, it makes killing (especially outside of the military) they still chose to enter into a violent, self-righteous job. You think them being for 'intimidating' makes it any better (even if that were true and not bullshit to cover up their actions and make themselves look better? And once again the British and American armies have killed innocents as well. In fact, just recently, British declared war even though Russia is fighting ISIS. The thing with the Ukraine and Russia is their business. However, once again, Britain and America have a thing for sticking their noses into other's business (along with France sometimes, at but least France is more moral and far less hypocritical than the former two).
No, I would not. And even then, the only reason we, the civilians would be 'powerless' is because we are not permitted to have weapons in our own homes for self-defence, never mind with us in person just in case (however, I do not think people should be allowed to carry guns around in public). Even if you have committed no crimes in your life, you will be punished, and have those weapons removed, should they be discovered in your home for any reason.
*Sigh* Assumptions. I did not say the military were there to protect me, nor did I suggest a country of only adult women would be a good thing. I am simply saying, that as a modern, strong, self-respecting woman, I would not let a man, especially if he had a gun, be so macho, so archaic, so patronizing (men who try to 'protect' women, or just men/boys in general trying to 'protect', or 'save', or 'fight for' girls/women, are doing nothing more than treating them as a weak, helpless child, instead of an equal) to treat and 'protect' or 'save' me. I would rather die honourably, fighting for myself (It's a 99.9% chance I would die anyway), than live with the dishonour, the humiliation, of a man doing that to me. I have accepted that and do not fear it happening.
Any 'woman' who does allow that is not more than a helpless little girl. By allowing someone male to 'protect' or 'save' her, she is treating him as superior to her, she is treating herself as weak, as a helpless child, as a defenceless damsel in distress. People like that need to go to the Dark Ages where they belong.
Not to sound like an SJW (again), but the women are not enforced the old, archaic, still-needs-to-die idea that men need to protect women. At least the female soldiers are fighting to try to protect both sexes (yes, I know the males are supposedly doing the same, but it does not change the gender roles it displays due to the part about women). Then again, most female soldiers are not really fighters anyway, as most are medics, snipers, pilots, or are behind a desk. Meanwhile, the men are doing the real, actually, close-ranging fighting (yes, I know there are male snipers, medics, pilots, etc, but again, they are not enforced old gender roles). Well, not close-close range, but it slightly more fair and just way of fighting. Hell, even back on those times, people thought archers were dishonourable, due to how easy it was to fell a man with an arrow. However, I'll say again that, unlike bows, guns do not take skill to use. Or rather, guns take far less skill. You may need to 'train' to use a gun, but anyone can pick up a gun and fire it, while you need to have strength, know how (or be able to) to knock an arrow, keep it drawn while accounting for the arc, and fire with the string twanging back and hitting you.
Next, I never said that soldiers only think women need protecting, as I said above, that is part of it, a bad part of it. I am not so stupid as to not know that it is for the 'protection' of all civilians.
Women and girls should be taught that men and boys need protection too, especially in the western world of today. Women should be taught that if you here a noise outside your tent, or in your house and you know it is not normal, do not listen to his disgusting, sexist, patronizing, archaic request for you to 'stay there' while he goes to investigate it, go with him. Men should be taught how patronizing, outdated, and undermining trying to 'protect' their wives (or daughters, or mother, or any other female family member) is.
While we are at it, instead of telling him to go investigate, or grab his gun, knife, bat, whatever (clearly showing yourself as a coward, and valuing your life more than his, no matter what reasoning you consciously use), you should either grab the gun or knife, then alert him or tell him to come with you. I read alot of stories about real life horrifying events like stalking, or being cornered with someone potentially dangerous or the situations above (well, you can only hope they are true, but I, being the cynical, realistic type, often doubt the story). Anyway, let's say they are all true, it's suprizing how much that stupid attitude/event happens in real life.
Besides, it's retarded to go alone in such a situation. One, have people not watch enough horror films (yes, I know, fiction) to know that splitting up is not a good idea? Two, having your partner with you, or going with you means an extra pair of fists and fight, extra pair of eyes, ears and noses, and perhaps an extra weapon. Sure, one could run for help while the other investigates, but that's still a stupid option. You should go for help, or just plain leg it, together.
To be my usual, blunt self - don't dare try to tell me what he was thinking. Don't dare think you know the shit he and the other forced fighters went through.
Once again, I did not say that the war, and the soldiers were not necessary (and even then, America only got involved because the war started affecting them, regardless of how much help they were), but they are no more moral than the Nazis. My great grandfather (why do people act like there is a difference between the two?), did not want to join as he did not want to stoop to the Nazis' level. He did not want to serve Britain (did not forget the part about tearing the union flag from his uniform?), and he did not want to kill (it was only one of the reasons). He was a peaceful, non-violent man. And you know what? Even after he came back, he did, he was not bitter; he did not resent the army or the government for forcing him and so many other innocent men into fighting. He still reminded a kind, gentle man throughout the rest of his life (he died about ten years ago, just to clarify). In that way, he is a stronger person than I am. He had the will, the strength, to not hate, to forgive, to not go again his morals (well, I am not going against my morals). As justified as it is, hatred and resentment are easy emotions to have.
It was my grandfather, his son, who joined willingly (and while I never asked, I'm sure great grandfather did not resent him for it).
I do. As I have said several times before (something you could need to figure out, even though I never said that armies and war were not necessary), I just disagree with them being praised and those who do praise insulting those who do not, trying to police their thoughts, and assuming their reasoning for doing so.
Armies are just as big scum as ISIS, and any other 'evil' people. How many times am I going to have to say this? All sides, all armies, all groups of fighters kill, main and torture, all commit various horrible acts. The main difference is, such as regardless ISIS, the UK and the US have the better morals, in this case.
I don't really know what to call myself, to be honest. I could never willingly kill a person or animal (well, I say that, and so do others, but you never really know, as humans are selfish after all, and will do anything to preserve our own lives), but if I did kill, even in self-defence, I would feel like scum. I feel like I was just as bad as the soldiers I hate, I would feel undeserving of the idea that I 'did what I had to do', or 'you were afraid and not thinking straight', or any other common, cliché reasoned used. Hell, if someone was attacking me, or someone I love, or breaking into my home, and there happened to be a gun there, even though there are plenty of knives in the kitchen, I know I would pick up the gun. I think I would even fire it, if intimating the intruder or attacker was not enough (most of the time, due to our tighter gun laws, you will usually be attacked with a knife or a hammer). At the vest least, I would try to aim for somewhere would cause enough pain, or outright break something to disable them long enough for the police to arrive (that is, if I don't miss, which is very, very likely).
I sure as hell am not going to hide somewhere like some damsel in distress (as the government seems to expect us citizens to do so) if some cunt is trying to get in. The few times I have thought someone was trying to get in (but it turned out be this drunken idiot who always thought our door was his), my first thought was not 'hide', it was 'grab your phone, get downstairs, grab the big knife from the kitchen, go back upstairs, and wait for the police you have been calling as you went down". That was regardless of whether I was alone or not. Then again, I'm sure I'm far form the only one to think that way, but one of the females. However, as with everyone, I was afraid, but as it can, fear can be used to further courage (if that makes sense and is not an oxymoron).
Finally, once again, I understand that too, but that does not mean I must praise them and agree with them. I am a modern woman and I am not British, so they are not 'protecting' me no matter how much they or other people think they are. They are protecting everyone who is to be British, who accepts them as their army.
I hope it looks rational to you (rude, I know).
Hey, hey, my 'debates' are not always screaming matches. As I said, if people begin polite, so will I. The original poster was quite rude, but no so rude as to warrant my best bluntness, so I did my best to stay calm and polite. I've had polite debates plenty of times in the past. Hell, the majority of my 'screaming match' debates usually simmer down into a proper discussion, after one or both of us realizes how screaming and insulting each other does not get either of us anywhere. In one case, I even made a friend out of one clam debate. Matt and I have had plenty of debates, past and present, and we still remain as close as we and calm as we can (then again, he's a calm person over all - I don't recall any time when he was gotten angry at something - it helps me, I think, balances me out).
In conclusion, I hope I have not been rude here, or have come across as rude (I think I've done both several times, sorry).
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Same here, but it is what it is. Until they've been in those shoes, they'll remain ignorant and hateful. The military is actually where I learned to open my views on people and what makes them who ty are.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The part that's never easy, no matter how tough you are. I can't begin to imagine how hard it is for her to say goodbye to her own baby. Hope she (and everyone else) returns home safely. I do really like the fact that you've actually captured the humanity in them, reminding us all that they're all still human.
I've tried to critique this, but I just feel you've captured it so well, evoking emotions in the viewer, that it's simply perfect as is. The only thing I can think of, is that maybe wait for them to hug.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks. Capturing the humanity has always been a goal in my work. It's definitely been a challenge.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ohh...This is so heart-melting, my eyes got watery as I saw this image :') I'm just speechless to even say something too good right now..very amazing shot and incredibly emotional
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you. It was a hard moment for all if us to see; even for those who have been in her shoes. Saying farewell seems to get harder every time.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thank you! It's definitely super hard for all of them. I've been on both sides. =c
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hello!
You have been featured as a part of my "Best of October" feature!
Best of October 2013Here are some of the best pictures I found in October, 2013. They do not appear in my Square-features, that's why I do a monthly feature for all those great artists on deviantART who submitted no-square pictures.
Enjoy!
Dark Forest by ~Nerium-OleandrMother and Son by ~darkSoul4Life
Cedar Waxwing by *Andres-Cadena
The Raft. by ~andokadesboisBibliotheque nationale de Fran by *GlueckAufPhoto
Img 7725-1 by ~snomanda
Like a dying rose by =OlivierAccart
Please check it out and give a favourite if you enjoyed it.
Have a nice day!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
she is going to bring a middle east country democracy or she gone bring some oil to home country
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I haven't seen any oil refineries over there. You'd think if we were going over there for natural resources, it would be for opium or weed.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
can i use some of your pictures ?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sure thing! All of my military photos are available for public use. Please, just don't disrespect anyone in my photos.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I've always wanted to know because lots of different people say things about it
but what does it mean to be a soldier ?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It means something different to everyone.
It's about upholding standards and becoming a family with complete strangers. I can speak with experience that the scene in this photo is the ultimate embodiment of selfless service. It's hard as hell to leave a little one behind not being 100% sure you're going to come home. It's the ability to embrace the suck in the worst of situations.
Granted, all careers have their bottom-feeders that are taking advantage of everything while not doing a thing to earn it. =/
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
This is so cute! The baby's eyes are just so incredible!
Wonderful shot
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You're quite welcome, you deserve it!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I love how its the woman going to war and not the man its really different... I love it!
(feminist alert!)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Haha, no worries. If I remember correctly, they both spent the early part of their marriage deployed.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
war....an pointless event between countries that ruins humanity....and economy thus gets ruined! I really feel bad for her...we Humans are truly the worst creature alive.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Honestly...I agree. I'm not a fan of the war, but combat isn't the only thing we're doing out there. I never really understood it until I was in Afghanistan myself.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
So sad isn't it?
Leaving your child safe back home, and go kill others' children in other land. Indeed, so touching.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yup. Because it's the photographer's job to hunt down and kill those evil children.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
I guess it's not something I can generalize on all US soldiers. Sorry for my rudeness.
You can understand how it feels when it's only the other way around, so you should be wiser and ignore my emotionaly-written comment.
..Anyway, away from all of that, nice photo.
Peace be upon you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'm so sorry you have to deal with these idiots. I'm a military brat, and it's astounding how little people know of the military and what they do. For some reason, they think the only job they do is kill like they're some kind of drone. There's thousands of other things that the military does, and most of it is humanitarian.
Again, I'm so sorry you have to deal with these people. They're so filled with hate for something they know nothing about.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks. But you should already know that we're mindless killing machines that eat babies for breakfast.
I'm usually good at tolerating comments like those, but when they're directed towards someone who's as nice as my soldier...game on. Momma bear is going to shred some throats.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
When I visit my uncles home his wife and kids have a chalk board that says how many days till daddy's comming home. And im happy to say that I saw my uncle richard for the first time in 14 months and got to see him with his family
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
<= Prev | | Next =>