Not sure I see the difference

Rating: 1/10 (15 April 2017)

I'm not sure I see the difference between self-defense and relying on another for defense of self in order to complete an assigned mission. Yes, the actions of Doss were heroic, but could he have accomplished what he did without a soldier with a gun beside his side doing the killing for him? And if that's the case, what's the difference? The Japanese soldier is not any less dead no matter who pulled the trigger and Private Doss is no less involved in the death of that soldier than if he had pulled the trigger. Is the soldier who pulled the trigger on Doss' behalf more morally stained by the act of killing for another? Perhaps less so since he stepped forward to perform a necessary evil when another would not. The movie tries to make all of this a black and white morality issue and it is so far from that.
Did Doss really have the luxury of not eating meat on the WWII battlefield? I found this movie frustrating for several reasons. The lengthy buildup to combat was unnecessary and seemed forced in order to add length to the movie.