[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Maxine Lydon
T1: Lydonm (at Alpha account)
Date: 10/30/97
Time: 6:15:38 PM
Remote Name: 130.68.51.55
This issue of 'kill or be killed' raises a lot of moral problems for me. On the one hand, reading what Colin Powell has to say makes it sound brutal, and yet in war what do you do? If someone was coming at you with a weapon with the intention of killing you you would have to defend yourself - anyone of us would do this. I think it comes down to how the killing is done and for what reasons it is done. As we all know, the Vietnam war was something that was not necessary, yet what could we expect those soldiers out there to do? Say sorry but I have to kill you? or hope thay they would have a enough time to work out whether the person is an enemy or not? I apologize if this makes no sense but they have a fan on in here which is so loud that I cannot hear myself think! Any how I think when you read things like these two passages, this is what makes you question their behaviour and say it is wrong. The part about the helicopter firing at someone on the ground seems cruel and unnecessary, and yet again should we have expected them to take the risk of waiting to see if their friendly or not? It seems that when it comes to war it ends up being a battle for survival to the point that it is better to kill and destroy everything in sight just to be on the safe side rather than try to fight a stragetic war and run the risk of being killed. As for the herbicide I am guessing that it was used eventually on people, even though they know the damage it can do having tested it on plants first. Also I am not sure if it is better to kill someone outright rather than starve them to death, as at least it is quicker. I'll stop know as I do not think I am saying anything amazing yet !!