NationStates Jolt Archive

Mother of soldier killed in Iraq collapses, dies
'Her grief was so intense,' hospital worker says


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.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/10/05/soldiers.mother.ap/index.html

:(

I'm glad things are getting better over there now.

I'm glad things are getting better over there now.
Things aren't getting better over there now. What the heck are they showing the US on the news?

I'm glad things are getting better over there now.

Ahh what?

Does that mean all the car bombs are just Iraqi fireworks?

Ahh what?

Does that mean all the car bombs are just Iraqi fireworks?


How would you know either way, media slave? Whats the closest you've been to Iraq?

How would you know either way, media slave? Whats the closest you've been to Iraq?

Not close enough to steal national treasures, most likely :rolleyes:

Media slave...that's a new one, I'll give you that.

How would you know either way, media slave? Whats the closest you've been to Iraq?

Ohhh. The car bombings are just the liberal conspiracy?

I have a cousin and a couple friends that are there right now.

But to answer your question:

Israel and the territories.

And you?

Ohhh. The car bombings are just the liberal conspiracy?


It's possible that there are far more good things happening than bad, especially given the fact that car bombings and other acts of violence generally make "better" news.

No, I'm not saying that things are getting better in Iraq. I don't have any idea whether they are or not. I'm just saying that what the media shows - on any channel, in any form, covering any event - certainly isn't the entirety of the event.

It's possible that there are far more good things happening than bad, especially given the fact that car bombings and other acts of violence generally make "better" news.

No, I'm not saying that things are getting better in Iraq. I don't have any idea whether they are or not. I'm just saying that what the media shows - on any channel, in any form, covering any event - certainly isn't the entirety of the event.

Yup! It's probably because people are either morbid and or want to see other people having worst lives then theirs.

It's always been interesting to see why people are more interested in tragic events then good.

News is business and it seems bad things sell....

Ohhh. The car bombings are just the liberal conspiracy?

I have a cousin and a couple friends that are there right now.

But to answer your question:

Israel and the territories.

And you?


Baghdad and all points south.

And most of the car bombings were and have been done not by Iraqis but by Syrian and Iranian infiltration. Its been occuring since the war itself.

Well to this whole board I'll see if I can take a Political Republican view.

Um *thinks*:

"Dang, guess we'll need another teen to fill the spot. Clearly this death means we need to fight terror!"

Baghdad and all points south.

And most of the car bombings were and have been done not by Iraqis but by Syrian and Iranian infiltration. Its been occuring since the war itself.

I kind of figured that. My cousin thought it was Iranians. One idiot at work tried to argue that it was those Fedayeen F'ers that were doing it. :rolleyes:

How many of those SOBs remain? The "media" doesn't say anything about them....

I kind of figured that. My cousin thought it was Iranians. One idiot at work tried to argue that it was those Fedayeen F'ers that were doing it. :rolleyes:

How many of those SOBs remain? The "media" doesn't say anything about them....


Most of them were killed, but a lot of them were bypassed in the war. If they didn't engage us we left them alone and sprinted for Baghdad. Kinda a dumb plan, if you ask me, but then I'm not Gen Franks.... :rolleyes:

but then I'm not Gen Franks.... :rolleyes:

yeah, Franks had the good sense to oppose the occupation.

yeah, Franks had the good sense to oppose the occupation.


LOL yeah ok....

My cousin spent time in and around Fallujah for nearly a year with the 82nd.

Said things are a lot better over there than the news shows. He said yeah, there was bombings and shootings but that, overall, it's getting better.

My cousin spent time in and around Fallujah for nearly a year with the 82nd.

Said things are a lot better over there than the news shows. He said yeah, there was bombings and shootings but that, overall, it's getting better.


My sister's there also, she says the same. As far as "Muslim" views about women, she says they treat her incredibly, call her "princess" in Arabic.

One thing that I think is very important to remember --

we're not leaving Iraq. We're staying there until a relatively stable government is established one way or another. Neither Bush nor Kerry would commit the political suicide of withdrawing our troops. So here's the question:

Do we keep on recklessly airing all the bad news in Iraq? Is it really going to be constructive to any cause other than to justify the feelings of the original anti-war sympathizers?

I think that since we're there, we should stop the massive broadcasting of things that have the obvious effect of demoralizing troops. We can sort out all the ugly details later -- once the mission is accomplished.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't hold the executors of the war accountable, but the dirty stuff does not need to be shouted as frequently as it has been over the past couple of years.

I think that since we're there, we should stop the massive broadcasting of things that have the obvious effect of demoralizing troops. We can sort out all the ugly details later -- once the mission is accomplished.


yeah, we should give up all of our freedoms in the name of spreading freedom!

Texas:

You're aware that is exactly the philosophy Lincoln adopted during the Civil War, correct?

Texas:

You're aware that is exactly the philosophy Lincoln adopted during the Civil War, correct?

so, does that make it correct?

If liberty a threat to spreading liberty, then why bother with it at all -- wouldn't it just make sense to become a dictatorship without having the trouble of going to war?

Texas:

I think you'll agree the Civil War was a success for the Union.

Therefore, it was correct. When the US once again becomes interested in the outcome commonly known as "winning" we'll be a lot better off on the battlefield.

Unfortunately the Left is preventing the American War Machine from reaching its full potential.

Also, these rights were not abolished, merely suspended. At times our rights must be suspended in part to preserve them as a whole.

Texas:

I think you'll agree the Civil War was a success for the Union.

Therefore, it was correct. When the US once again becomes interested in the outcome commonly known as "winning" we'll be a lot better off on the battlefield.

Unfortunately the Left is preventing the American War Machine from reaching its full potential.

Also, these rights were not abolished, merely suspended. At times our rights must be suspended in part to preserve them as a whole.


No, our rights must never be suspended, or else we lose the spirit and integrity in wich those rights were concieved in the first place.

The Founding Fathers did not intend to have our unaliable rights suspended, for any reason.

The whole idea was to remove tyrrany, not enforce it.

You guys are forgetting that, to Fuego, the only thing that matters is winning. If he had to shoot some 5 year old girl in order to be first in the supermarket line, I wouldn't doubt he would.

Of course, that's just something I made up just now-but it's probebly true :D

You guys are forgetting that, to Fuego, the only thing that matters is winning. If he had to shoot some 5 year old girl in order to be first in the supermarket line, I wouldn't doubt he would.

Of course, that's just something I made up just now-but it's probebly true :D

Not to be first in the supermarket line, but out in the field if that 5-year old is pointing a weapon at me (or, for that matter, merely holding a weapon) then yes, it's the unfortunate reality of warfare.

This is why I firmly believe warfare should be the last resort. Let me emphasize, firmly believe it to be the last resort.

The reason being is because I also firmly believe once the decision to go into conflict has been made it should be quick and it should be vicious (borrowing from Clauswitz). Think of me as the family attack dog. When the decision is made to unleash the dog, you have to be prepared for the end results.

The dog will do what is necessary to ensure the safety of its family using all available means.

Fuck yeah.

Not to be first in the supermarket line, but out in the field if that 5-year old is pointing a weapon at me (or, for that matter, merely holding a weapon) then yes, it's the unfortunate reality of warfare.

This is why I firmly believe warfare should be the last resort. Let me emphasize, firmly believe it to be the last resort.

The reason being is because I also firmly believe once the decision to go into conflict has been made it should be quick and it should be vicious (borrowing from Clauswitz). Think of me as the family attack dog. When the decision is made to unleash the dog, you have to be prepared for the end results.

The dog will do what is necessary to ensure the safety of its family using all available means.


Alright, this I can agree with.

BUT...Keeping this in mind about war being firmly the last resort...

Do you think that the war in Iraq, had reached a last resort?
The lack of any weapons of mass destruction would indicate that Saddam was not a threat to America, or its interests.

What's your point?

yeah, we should give up all of our freedoms in the name of spreading freedom!

I am not advocating the suppression of free speech as a matter of policy, but I think that Americans should adopt the attitude of limiting their counter-productive rhetoric in the interest of progress and national security. It's a matter of ideology.

No, our rights must never be suspended, or else we lose the spirit and integrity in wich those rights were concieved in the first place.

The Founding Fathers did not intend to have our unaliable rights suspended, for any reason.

The whole idea was to remove tyrrany, not enforce it.

On that note, do you think that people should be allowed to yell 'fire' in a crowded room?

Backwood:

I don't know. I know we bargained with Iraq under Hussein for nearly a dozen years and, had 9/11 not happened, would have continued doing so.

I know from reading Richard Clark's "Against All Enemies" that, in his words, all national security experts (himself included) believed Iraq had weapons. They certainly weren't acting like a country with nothing to hide.

I do think the job in Afghanistan should have been finished and with more US troops being on the ground. However, I would have employed my same ideology in Afghanistan as I have spoken about here. It's an ideology that seems to have been lost with the American public somewhere between the end of Korea and is lacking today.

Because, by having more troops in Afghanistan (originally), I would have had boots on the ground within days of the 9/11 attacks, shooting anyone entering or exiting the country on the spot, no questions asked. Anyone associated with the Taliban would have also been rounded up and, if necessary, executed.

You hear Michael Moore speaking about needing "more troops," but really more troops will only provide "more targets." Our troop level is not the problem. The problem is how we use (and lack thereof) our military. We instruct our military to operate as some sort of domestic police force in a situation (warfare) where our enemy abides by no law. Once again, just like Vietnam, we are fighting another conflict with one arm tied behind our back.

I am not advocating the suppression of free speech as a matter of policy, but I think that Americans should adopt the attitude of limiting their counter-productive rhetoric in the interest of progress and national security. It's a matter of ideology.

Bollocks that!

What do you mean by counter-productive rhetoric, is that the new buzz-word for thought-crime ?

First of all, when has America not been involved in some sort of war? That's a long time for us to sit by like silent witnesses to fascism! (Did you obey Clinton during the Kosovo War? I know I didn't)

Second, If this nonsensical ideology were followd, then African-Americans would still be second-class citizens because the civil rights movement shoke the foundation of America. The cries for equality would have been called "counter-productive rhetoric" that opposed the general national interest of the majority of Americans.

<snip> Anyone associated with the Taliban would have also been rounded up and, if necessary, executed.
<snip>


say, if you want to execute everyone associated with the Taliban, why not start with the Bush cartel? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm

On that note, do you think that people should be allowed to yell 'fire' in a crowded room?


No I dont.

And, in fact, that too is covered in the Constitution.

It says "no".

Freedom of Speech means that you can say whatever you want, provided you use the right forum.
Yelling "Fire" in a crowded room, for instance, is dangerous to the safety of everyone in it.

On that note, do you think that people should be allowed to yell 'fire' in a crowded room?

Top Five Responses to this Asinine Question

5. Who, you mean like Donald Trump?
4. Well, it's either that or we're back to saying, "that bright red stuff that's really hot"
3. Only if they're dancing and begin "I'm on.."
2. No, but wispering it softly into each persons ear is okay
1. Hell NO ~ Let 'em burn, I say!