Nations Should Act With Military Force Against Countries That Execute Homosexuals

My opponent is merely back-tracking in his latest argument. In round one he clearly states, "I propose that countries that execute homosexuals should be invaded by, ideally an international coalition, but if necessary by the United States or which ever country takes up the cause unilaterally and forces them to legalize homosexuality and give them equal rights.""... but those that execute them should be invaded and forced to treat homosexuals equally."It doesn't say "We should invade them... unless we can first get them to change their minds", it simply says "If they execute homosexuals, invade them". Indeed, the very use of the word "force" at the end of the second quote proves that Pro had nothing other than military invasion and occupation in mind when he wrote his argument. As Pro points out, the resolution does not say we shouldn't negotiate policy with these nations, but on the other hand it also doesn't say we should either -- which is more important. By arguing that we should negotiate with these countries to remove the need for invasion, Pro has changed his position and deviated from his argument outlined in round 1. It's all fine and well to change your position on a topic, but not in the middle of a debate. If pro wants to change his resolution to encompass policy negotiations then he must forfeit this debate and start another one.My opponent next argues that time is not a factor to his resolution and that we could use homosexual activism and propaganda to remove the need for invasion. This may be true, but once again it goes against Pro's original argument that these countries should be invaded. You can not change OR add-on to your resolution half-way through a debate simply because your original supporting arguments weren't enough to counter my rebuttals. If method 'x' undermines the need for invasion, then it undermines your original resolution as it clearly states "Nations Should Act With Military Force Against Countries That Execute Homosexuals". No other method of solving the problem is mentioned here, therefore any method that is not 'military force' is against Pro's resolution. I could just have easily opened my argument by stating these alternative methods. Pro has the burden of proof, not me. Pro can't bail on his resolution in favour of an alternative method simply because I didn't bring up that argument first. That's not how this works. All arguments that involve a reason not to invade, whether it be the infeasibility of invasion OR the existence of solutions not involving invasion, are arguments in favour of my position, not Pro's. Given that Pro's resolution and original argument mentions nothing about the arguments he is now presenting, it is clear that Pro cannot defend his original position and has instead stooped to desperately back-tracking his resolution in order to shoe-horn in these additional methods. If Pro cannot uphold his original resolution and the BOP thereby, then I must ask him to forfeit the debate.The one 'on-point' argument my opponent makes is that we could take advantage of civil disputes within these nations in order to impose our "homosexual tolerance" ideology. Ignoring how highly unethical exploiting the plight of revolutionaries and escalating civil unrest for our own agenda is, this plan will most likely not work. As Pro points out, these groups aren't fond of homosexuality either. They may feign tolerance to gain our initial military support, but once the job is done they will simply ignore our conditions. After all, what are we going to do? Go to war with them? We needed the help of these guerrillas in the first place to topple the last government. Who will we appeal to now? Besides, the majority of the population of these countries are intolerant of homosexuals. If this new government doesn't give the people what they want then the people are likely to riot and collapse the new government before it even gets started.This argument also doesn't deal with the problem of initial support. Even though Canada has gay marriage and England and Australia have unregistered cohabitation, they still have nothing to gain from this war. Worse still, they have a lot to lose. Consider this, the combined military expenditure of all three of these countries combined is about 115 billion dollars (1). The United States alone spends more than 15 times that much, and even with such an enormous military budget, the U.S. has still required over a decade of war with countries similar to the ones in question. In total, about 1.36 trillion has been lost on the war (already more than 10x the money these three countries have to spend on war combined) and 6500 U.S. soldiers have died as a result of going to war with these two countries (2), and you want a military force with 1/15 the budget to invade at least 2.5 times as many countries? We simply don't have the money or the man-power. Not even close. Even if we exploit guerrilla factions, that's not enough to cover the difference in expense for invading/occupying even two countries, let alone 5-50. Even if you can make success seem likely, most people will not get behind such needless spending and killing of our own soldiers. Especially when such a thing may take decades to actually work, if ever.To conclude round 3, invasion is both unlikely and infeasible. There simply isn't the support, nor the money, nor the man-power needed to accomplish such a task. Furthermore, there are alternative methods that make invasion unnecessary such as international negotiations and despite my opponent's claim otherwise, this fact does not support his position whatsoever. To the contrary, it's in direct opposition to his resolution. I look forward to your response.1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://icasualties.org...