Mother of solider collapses & dies
Find a Conversation
| Tue, 10-05-2004 - 3:19pm |
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.

Pages
I too can't see the logic in the pre-emptive war concept particularly in regards to Iraq and particularly at this point in time. I understand he was a threat (like many others....and less of a threat than a handful of others in the region). I suspect that the administration KNEW this to some degree and THAT was why they attacked Iraq rather than a more dangerous country. Their downfall was that they misjudged how what would happen in the aftermath (and thus failed to plan adequately for it). I think they deliberatly chose Iraq for two reasons....
1. wanting to establish a democracy in one of the larger oil rich countires in the Middle East (which would be a very good thing for America), they actually suspected all along that Saddam was weakened and they foresaw an easy victory.
2. Given the past history between America and Iraq it would be an incredibly easy sell to the American people already fearful after 9/11.
I remember when the war was about to start, I posted on these boards that Saddam's threatening capabilities had been losing ground and he had been greatly weakened. I didn't make this stuff up. This knowledge had been around even though much noise is being made by the recent "discoveries" documented in the latest WMD report.
This had been widely talked about (I don't know where everybody WAS). If people want to think that it was non-Americans saying these things (or clueless treasonous Americans) even THAT isn't the case:
In 2001 Condeleeza Rice said:
“But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.”
Colin Powell said:
“We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they have directed that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was 10 years ago when we began it. And frankly, they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.”
I will repost Rice and Powell's statements of this under the New Thread "CNN: No WMD's In Iraq" (including some additional links).
I also agree with Robbie Burns who once said "O wad some power the giftie gie us To see oursel's as ithers see us! It wad frae monie a blunder free us". If we fail as a nation, in our overseas efforts, I suspect that the inability to look at ourselves critically will have been the single greatest factor leading to that failure.
There would be lots of reasons to favor getting rid of Saddam and establishing a democracy in Iraq. Have easy and cheap oil. This administration with its close ties to the oil industry would benefit tremendously from that one! Stabilize the free world economies whose status quo is heavily dependent on fossil fuels. Squeeze Iran (between Afghanistan and Iraq). Diminish our need to have a close relationship with the autocratic and imperiled House of Saud. Dubya would get vengeance on the man who threatened his daddy. Shore up Israel and help it feel less isolated in a region governed largely by Islamic theocracies or autocracies. And of course, a democracy based on the US model would dictate a separation between religion and state which would go a long way to neutralzing the threat from fundamental Islamic terrorists. What's not to love about the whole thing?!
And I truly do believe that this administration saw 9/11 as a change event. Though tragic in its impact, the neo-cons believed that 9/11 could be used to further their agenda of expanding US influence and power. And you know, had they been a bit more careful, it just might have worked. But they were too forgetful of past forays into Middle East oil politics (the Shah of Iran should have showed up on someone's radar screen!), too arrogant and too hasty (fairly common ailments in recent US history!). And I am furious that it's not the policy movers and shakers paying for their own ineptitude, it's primarily the US military, US taxpayers, and, of course, the Iraqi people.
Ah well, time will tell if you and I were on track or not.
Gettingahandle
Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.
I believe, and call me naive, that as a society becomes more civilized, it should strive to lead by example, not by force. If a war is necessary for self defense, then of course it should be met with a good offense.
This would seperate the truely great, inspirational and powerful nations from the merely powerful.
I've also tried to clarify before and will do so again--I did not get my commission, so I did NOT serve in the armed forces. I was a ROTC cadet during college but dropped out of the ROTC program and married another ROTC cadet just after he started his four year active service obligation. While he was active duty, I worked as a DoD civilian. My father (WWII naval aviator) and mother were DoD civilians and worked at various Air Force, Marine and Army installations throughout the Far East and stateside. And my son is Army enlisted and the most recent active duty member of my family.
I'm just wondering who gave you the power to decide what defines a true patriot and who meets the criterion. Actually, it's because I really do care for the government and good of this country that I raise objections to the war in Iraq and the way in which it was conceived and birthed. If blind and unquestioning obedience is the single greatest criteria for patriotism, then I'm not patriotic--but I know a bunch of North Koreans who are!
Gettingahandle
Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.
Gettingahandle
Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.
Téll me about it....I'm saving money for one.
You finally managed to spell my name correctly!
Pages