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: 03-26-2003
Thu, 10-07-2004 - 10:15am
I am appalled at the willingness of some in the US public and onlookers such as yourself to back a man who tries to portray himself as a strong and moral leader but appears to encourage deceit on a truly humongous scale. (I found the White House web site's graphics banner with the words "Denial and Deception" on the Cincinnati speech transcript grimly appropriate). You are absolutely correct that Bush did not state in straight forward terms "Saddam Hussein is linked to 9/11". But by juxtaposing his comments on Iraq with 9/11, he linked them and deliberately created the impression that it was a cause-effect relationship. In so doing, Bush either mislead many in his nation, or allowed them to be mislead by his backers. And he used that impression to generate support for war in Iraq, along with the threat of WMD. Do you really believe that his murderous war would have had as much public support as it did, had the U.S. public been aware that there was no 9/11-SH link or that the UN sanctions and weapons inspections had been largely successful and there were no WMD? As far as I am concerned that sort of "leadership" is something that has no place in a healthy democracy.

By the way, I lack the time to go through archives not being accessed by the search mechanism. As near as I can tell, the search is only hitting files generated as of fall last year. I have a pretty good memory though and don't recall any strong statements by you against the SH-9/11 fabrication until after Bush finally admitted in September of 2003 that no such actual link existed. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm Many of us who did not support the war or its rationale made the "no actual statement of link" argument much earlier and were reviled for it too. So your comment that : <> sounded very much like an inept attempt to create another misconception. Don't hold your breath waiting for a retraction from me.



The Bush administration strung together unverified bits of information and some extremely fuzzy "logic" to make a case to go to war with Iraq. Now the web is falling apart--Charles Duelfer's report shows no WMD and no active WMD programs were in place at the time of our invasion of Iraq. In their arrogance and pride, the Secretary of Defense and his under secretary alienated former allies, cherry-picked the information they wanted to hear; and along with their president, rushed into a war with a ragtag "coalition of the willing" that was over 90% US forces and cost. They did not take into consideration the danger of looting, societal disarray, infrastructure degradation, and cultural differences. And over a thousand troops have died--for a threat that wasn't there and the war isn't over. And those are FACTS.

Gettingahandle

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 10-07-2004 - 11:18am
I think you're laboring under several misapprehensions. First, I am not a big fan of Kerry. So quoting whatever he said or did that concurred with your views doesn't have any particular significance for me. I'm an ABB (anybody but Bush).

Secondly, you seem to think that France and Germany were the only "villains" contributing to Saddam Hussein's clandestine attempts to winkle his way around the "oil for food" restrictions. I seem to recall that there were US firms making money through less-than-pristine channels in pre-invasion Iraq. "According to the SIPRI arms transfers database, from 1981 to 2001, the United States was the 11th largest supplier of weapons and arms to Iraq, supplying approximately $200 million of Iraq’s weapons imports. The top three suppliers, from 1981 to 2001, were Russia, China and France respectively." None of them were being ethical but unfortunately, such is the often the nature of capitalism. I am much less angry at France and Germany's money making endeavors in Iraq than I am at Halliburton or any of the other "cost plus percent" contractors who are profiteering at tax payers' expense. Their employees receive handsome salaries and generous disability packages while US troops, without the option of choosing whether or not to be deployed in a combat zone, get an extra $250 a month for combat pay added on to their measly take home pay. And their disability pension or health benefits are dependent on the percentage of disability the military decides they have. Troops are underpaid to begin with so even a 90% disability pension is piddling.

I have a question for you. When one of your children misbehaves, do you immediately and appropriately discipline (think about the time lag for SH and his Kurds); do everything you can to anticipate and prevent damage from what your child might do; and enlist the support of others to make sure that you were all sending a consistent message? Would you discipline your child for something that your child might do but has not yet done? IMHO, no parent of good repute would pre-emptively discipline. To the best of my knowledge, no court of law would allow a defendant to plead innocent to a crime because the defendant thought something "might" hurt them and they wanted to strike first. The logic behind a pre-emptive war is shaky at best and immoral/criminal at worst.

I am not fond of stereotypes or generalizations either, and have often argued that they pigeon hole people when each of us is a unique individual. In the US, many women of young children are justifiably very concerned about raising their children without fear of attack. Both Bush and Kerry appear to be concerned about scoring political points with them. And I also think that the responses both candidates are using are somewhat primitive and elemental. But their "fixes", if implemented, may be short term gains with long term pains attached. In the world right now, there are other women with young children who feel threatened by what the US is doing. We ignore that at our own peril. If you look at history and its many lessons, you will see that hatreds, resentments, displacements and upheaval are measured in hundreds, sometimes even thousands of years.

Gettingahandle

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Thu, 10-07-2004 - 11:44pm
<"According to the SIPRI arms transfers database, from 1981 to 2001, the United States was the 11th largest supplier of weapons and arms to Iraq, supplying approximately $200 million of Iraq’s weapons imports. >

What a transparently misleading statistic-obviously we supplied Saddam with weapons in the Iraq Iran war-but my guess is if you take the years 1991-2001 our contributions would have been zero, so to quote statistics for the years 1981-2001 is meaningless to the the current circumstances. We also were supplying them legally, not while they were under UN sanctions that we ourselves put in place like France Germany and Russia.



Really? You think it's better to take food and medicine out of the mouths of starving children while furnishing the palaces of a violent madman, and illegally ignore sanctions you yourself imposed on a brutal aggressive dictator, than to take advantage of legal corporate tax loopholes in the United States? Ok....gotta disagree with ya there.



So you don't like Halliburton because they pay their employees well and give them good benefits? I'm a little confused on that one too...you do know Halliburton's contracts in Iraq have been thoroughly investigated by an independant commission and declared completely aboveboard, don't you?



Yep, I agree, we should have had Saddam out of there long ago. Hard to blame George W Bush for that though, I keep hearing he rushed to war. Unfortunately I can't always anticipate everything my children will do, don't think anyone can. No, I don't enlist the support of others-when it comes to my family's safety and security I do what I know is right, regardless of what others may or may not think about it. I might consider their opinions, but if I believe their opinion would endanger my child's welfare I will ignore it.



You mean like if I found out my child had drugs or was about to buy them but hadn't actually used them yet? You bet I would. Especially if I already had a prior agreement with my child about what he could or could not possess in order to keep the peace, LOL. (This is fun).



No, but they might be acquitted if they believed someone was about to attack their child and they acted to prevent it.



I agree, and it's sad that so many have such a distorted picture of the US. But I believe when stability is brought to Iraq and they taste the fruits of freedom they will feel differently. I know it sounds corny but that's what I believe, and I beleive history will bear that out. It has before.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 10-08-2004 - 6:23am
<<"I am appalled at the willingness onlookers such as yourself to back a man who tries to portray himself as a strong and moral leader but appears to encourage deceit on a truly humongous scale.">>......I had no idea I was backing Bush on the WOT for the reasons you give.

Djie

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 10-08-2004 - 10:31am
Your comment about the SIPRI statistics raises a valid point. Perhaps I should have posted the website so you could see the source before you shot it down. http://www.ice.gov/graphics/news/factsheets/ICEarmsstrategic.htm

I suspect that there were more supplies/technology from the US going into Iraq than turn up on the web. If the supplies were clandestine, illegal, and not caught, odds are very good that information and statistics would not show.



Your righteous indignation at France and Germany for what you think may have contributed to keeping food and medicine out of the reach of Iraqi children is inconsistent with your apparent willingness to endorse a war that has killed or maimed many and also made many homeless or parentless. Yes, I am more angry at Halliburton. Or maybe your values system advocates awarding a non-competitive, no caps bid, to cronies of the current VP and watching them reap the profits while underpaid troops who have no choice and no say are fighting and dying in a guerilla war under grueling conditions. And Halliburton also pays its employees who have freely chosen to go into Iraq much much better than the US pays its soldiers. As a tax payer with a son in the armed forces, I am so mad I could spit. And I've looked high and low online and found nothing about an independent commission clearing Halliburton of fraud charges.

I had hope to show you that the pre-emptive strike posture is illogical and counter productive so I chose the parent analogy. It would certainly be your right to prevent drugs falling into the hands of your children but that would be for the sake of keeping them safe. Somehow, I get the sense that your children aren't teenagers or you might not be thinking that this exercise is fun but that's supposition on my part. It's also interesting that you say you don't seek to have your children receiving a consistent message in as many of their life settings as possible. Seems odd, but parenting styles do vary.

However, our relationship with Iraq and Saddam Hussein is not that of a parent with a recalcitrant child. Iraq is a sovereign nation. In the world community, it is considered to be a country with equal rights, not a slave state or dependancy.

I would be very interested to see a case where the courts acquitted a defendant because it was believed that someone was about to attack their child and they acted to prevent it. The burden of proof would have to be overwhelming and not based on conjecture or their contention that the party looked menacing.

By acting like a rampageous and arrogant bully in his rush to war, Bush alienated allies who could have helped to mitigate the cost and damage to US resources. Diplomacy and tact are the "ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure". And yes, it was a rush. All of a sudden, while we're supposedly trying to find OBL but failing to do so, Bush and company decide that the hot button issue of the moment is SH's posturing–which he's been doing for years. But we gotta go in and neutralize him, right now, this very moment. Because he might be doing something and it might be a threat. And now we find out that the "mights" have the size of a mite and don't appear to have been grave and growing at all. And because the secretary of defense was hell bent on trying out his pet project of a more mobile and trimmed down military, in the crucial period of time when there was a pressing need to establish stability and set some ground rules, there weren't enough troops and not enough clear sense of urgency and priority. So, now there really IS a problem though they're still spinning away in the Pentagon and White House to try put the best face on it. They ought to spend their energies on acknowledging the error and rectifying it but given their track record, it's not likely that will happen.

Have you ever lived overseas? Do you realize that even in countries where the conflicts are over 50 years in the past, many in local populations resent seeing US troops in their country? It's not a question of distortions (which quite conveniently in your argument makes it THEIR perceptions and not our behavior that's the problem!), it's an issue having to do with both psychological and sociological themes. Nationalism and cultural differences are part of it as is the sense of pride and self-determination. For example, our involvement and mission in Vietnam was supposed to "win hearts and minds". How on earth can those be won at the point of a gun? Taste freedom when it's crammed down your throat? One would be a whole lot more likely to choke on it!

Gettingahandle

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 10-08-2004 - 10:48am
It's getting pretty convoluted, your argument. Be careful, if you keep going in a circle, eventually you're going to bite your own tail! And you're also conclusion jumping but not much new there either.

I will go back to my main point. Bush managed to give the impression that SH and 9/11 were linked. It was deliberate. Interesting that you make no comment whatsoever about the BBC piece of a year ago which showed how many people in the US believed that there was a link. This administration is still trying to exploit that perception and related reasoning to justify Iraq and get re-elected. If asked point blank whether there was a link, Cheney and Bush will either equivocate or say "no" but then they go right back to using wording and phrasing that does its damndest to convey just that impression. Don't blame their chicanery on the listener.

Gettingahandle

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-21-2004
Fri, 10-08-2004 - 10:56am
Unfortunately, and perhaps the mother understood this, her son died completely unnecessarily and none of us are the slightest bit safer. In fact we have even more to be afraid of now, since even more terrorists hate us. We have done exactly what Bin Laden has preached we would do, invaded and occupied
Donna
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-21-2004
Fri, 10-08-2004 - 11:03am

I don't believe it was a trumped up threat (neither did Kerry or Edwards for that matter) YES THEY DID AND IT WAS, Bush never tried to link Saddam with 9/11 YES HE DID, HE HAS SINCE CHANGED HIS REASON FOR WAR SEVERAL TIMES, he only said that 9/11 taught us that we cannot afford to wait until threats become relaities before acting

Donna
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-21-2004
Fri, 10-08-2004 - 11:11am

I challenge you respond to her post, instead of the comments about the word "savage" which really have nothing to do with her comments about war and being a soldier.

Donna

"Patriotism means to stand by the Country. It does not mean to stand by the President." -- Theodore Roosevelt.

Donna
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-21-2004
Fri, 10-08-2004 - 11:24am

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. 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.


Where have you been? SH was NOT a threat with WMDs and had no capability to rebuild his WMD program. This was information, by the way, that was given to them before they started the war.

Donna