Mother of solider collapses & dies

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-05-2004
Mother of solider collapses & dies
60
Tue, 10-05-2004 - 3:19pm
Here's the original link: http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/10/05/soldiers.mother.ap/index.html

Mother of soldier killed in Iraq collapses, dies

'Her grief was so intense,' hospital worker says

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 Posted: 12:28 PM EDT (1628 GMT)

TUCSON, Arizona (AP) -- A 45-year-old woman collapsed and died days after learning her son had been killed in Iraq, and just hours after seeing his body.

Results of an autopsy were not immediately released, but friends of Karen Unruh-Wahrer said she couldn't stop crying over losing her 25-year-old son, Army Spc. Robert Oliver Unruh, who was killed by enemy fire near Baghdad on September 25.

"Her grief was so intense -- it seemed it could have harmed her, could have caused a heart attack. Her husband described it as a broken heart," said Cheryl Hamilton, manager of respiratory care services at University Medical Center, where Unruh-Wahrer worked as a respiratory therapist.

Unruh, a combat engineer, had been in Iraq less than a month when he was shot during an attack on his unit.

Several days after learning of his death, his mother had gone to the hospital complaining of chest pains, Hamilton said. She was feeling better the next day but saw her son's body Saturday morning and collapsed that night in her kitchen.

Her husband, Dennis Wahrer -- also a respiratory therapist -- and other family members performed CPR but Unruh-Wahrer was pronounced dead that night.

Autopsy results won't be released until relatives are notified, said Dr. Bruce Parks, Pima County chief medical examiner. There was no immediate response to a call to his office before business hours Tuesday.

Robert Unruh will be buried Friday at the Southern Arizona Veterans' Memorial Cemetery. His mother's body will accompany her son's in the procession to the cemetery.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2003
Wed, 10-06-2004 - 4:18pm
ITA
Avatar for savagefreedom
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-20-2003
Wed, 10-06-2004 - 4:19pm

For some ungodly or reason or another. My handled has cause alot of people issues, I have had this handle for years. I am sorry to state life and people are savage. And they are this way because they have the freedom to be this way. A quick word game Freedom is to Anarchy ?

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-07-2004
Wed, 10-06-2004 - 4:56pm
I didn't believe it. About 10 to 15 MILLION people around the world didn't believe it, that's why there was a global day of protest. Seems we were right.

Dontcha think if 10 million or more people (including your own church, Nelson Mandela, the Pope, nobel prize winners, etc etc) begged you not to do something, you would pause & reconsider? I know I would.

< He WAS a threat with WMDs, John Kerry and John Edwards believed it, the Un security council believed it, everyone on the planet believed it.>



It would have been impossible to attack us since they had no WMD. I'm truly sorry our pres believes he has a right to preemptively attack another country on the basis of faulty "intelligence". What's worse, even after it is proven there were no WMD, now he pretends we still had valid reasons.

< So in your opinion the US must wait until we are actually attacked with WMD's before we act to prevent it? I'm glad our president doesn't believe that. >

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-09-2004
Wed, 10-06-2004 - 5:00pm
It is not your "handle" I have issue with. Everyone uses a "handle" for whatever reason, maybe an "inside joke" or it means something special to them. My problem is I how interpret your post. From what I am gathering it seems like savage and freedom go hand in hand. They do not have to and should not. As the line in the song says "we forget how fragile we are". Human life is fragile and too often we forget that as do our leaders. Freedom does not give one the "right" to be savage. Freedom gives one the right to live peacably, free from fear, to be able to voice their opinions, etc. But not to live in violence and savagery.
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Wed, 10-06-2004 - 6:05pm


There have been no WMDs found-that does not mean "they had none". In any case, the threat was never that they would attack us directly- the threat was that they would assist terrorists in attacking us-that's a threat I still believe was very real. So does John Kerry, according to him.



There is NO evidence that President Bush, or John Kerry, or John Edwards, or the UN security council, all of whom declared Iraq a threat to the world with WMDws, knew that the intelligence was faulty. Therefore your premise that Bush believes he has the right to attack based on faulty intelligence is entirely incorrect.



There were other reasons from WMDs, there have been from the start, Bush is not pretending anything. Is he "pretending" that Saddam spent 12 years defying 17 UN resolutions? Is Bush pretending that Saddam agreed to terms of surrender after he was defeated by a wqorld coalition and then violated those terms? Is Bush pretending that tens of thousands of Kurds died from chemical weapons we knew Saddam had that have never been accounted for? Did Bush just make all that up in his own imagination? No, those are facts and were all pre-invasion parts of the case to go to war.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 10-06-2004 - 10:20pm

<<"What, pray tell, are you talking about in this statement: "Like I said elsewhere... Isn't it so incredibly ODD how it is those who oppose the war on Iraq that keep stubbornly connecting 9/11 to SHussein!! If only by saying it isn't so". Huh?">>... Quite simple.


Fact: The Bush administration néver linked SH directly to the events of 9/11 and it was never given as a reason to invade Iraq.

Djie

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 10-06-2004 - 10:26pm
It's possible that Cheney was trying to pick a more recent event but I think there's actually another reason at play. Both Germany and Japan had been at war for several years and were scraping the bottom of the barrel. Fighting had drained both countries of virtually all their resources and they were pretty thoroughly demoralized. In neither country were there guerilla attacks resulting in US troop deaths after the occupation. It certainly cannot be said that the same is true in Iraq.

So glad you brought up the issue of the Revolutionary War. Only here's food for thought. We are now playing the role in Iraq that the British played in the colonies of North America. Sure, there was turbulence during our "insurgency". The Tories wanted to continue being loyal subjects of King George. Patriots had other ideas and waged a guerilla war right alongside more conventional warfare. The patriots persevered and kicked out an occupying power because they wanted--wait for it........independence and the right to choose a government of their own representing their own needs. Moreover at the turn of the 19th century when the Brits would not respect OUR sovereignty and kept trying to impress (shanghai) US sailors, we had another war. Hmmmmm.

One last caveat--the bigger we are, the harder we fall. France and Britain became second tier powers in large part because they overextended their empires and then had to figure out how to cope when nationalism became a drain on their ability to retain control.

Gettingahandle

Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 10-06-2004 - 10:54pm
Well, I'll give you credit for having a lot of nerve. I don't recall if you specifically were one of the voices howling a year and a half ago on the "Hot Topic: War in Iraq" board that SH was linked to 9/11. By the way, there are searchable archives so I probably could dig back and find out whether you were one of the suckered. But many backers of the Iraq invasion were convinced that Bush's speech in Cincinnati http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html was proof that there was a link between 9/11 and Saddam. And Bush let that impression ride for a long time before finally being asked pointblank about the link and having to admit that no such thing existed. Even today his administration has expanded their lie to read something like this:

Terrorists attacked the US. Saddam might have harbored terrorists. So it was right to take out Saddam.

You ought to be ashamed of this comment "Those who oppose the war on Iraq keep saying "They lied to us, because Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11". Thus bringing up that non-fact trying to imprint the false accusation time and again". Bush's misleading words were contemptible, especially for a man who professes to be so moral and upstanding. He's still weasel-like and apparently you're willing to partake of his dirty, nasty tactics.

Gettingahandle

Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 10-07-2004 - 2:50am
It doesn't take nerve to state facts.

Djie

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-20-2003
Thu, 10-07-2004 - 2:58am
You really don’t have to go back much further than the RNC in New York.

The speeches contained dozens of references to 911.

They contained dozens of references to Saddam Hussein.

bin Laden was mentioned twice.