Nations Should Act With Military Force Against Countries That Execute Homosexuals

My opponent's argument is as follows:1. People are being executed for being gay2. Being gay should not be something people are executed for3. Therefore, we should commence a series of military campaigns to put a stop to such executions.Wile I agree with 1 and 2, 3 is a poor conclusion to come to. This isn't World War II where you basically have only one country committing mass genocide, there's roughly a continent's worth of countries that either state homosexuality as an executable offence, or at least something worthy of a heavy penalty/life in prison (something my opponent is also in opposition to). (1)This endeavour would require going to war with nearly every country in both Africa and the middle East simultaneously. Even if we take a step back and decide to only invade those countries where homosexuality is explicitly deemed to be worthy of the death sentence, these countries will more then likely still receive military aid from these neighboring countries, meaning going to war with any of these countries for that reason will inevitably result in (at least the equivalent of) going to war with all of them anyway. This simply isn't feasible. Who would spear-head such an initiative? The U.S.A.? Unlikely. This is a country where same-sex unions are largely unrecognized and same-sex sexual activity has only been nationally legal since 2003 (2).Perhaps you contend that while Americans don't approve of homosexuality on average, they still would oppose executing homosexuals and would therefore go to war for the cause anyway. This idea would quickly be overshadowed by one word: Money. The U.S. debt is already exceeds its GDP, a large part of that is thanks to the two wars the U.S. is already involved in, Iraq and Afghanistan. To date, these wars have cost the U.S. a total of $1,360,044,700,000 (3). The cost is rising so quickly that this number will most likely be several millions (perhaps tens of millions) of dollars higher by the time you get around to reading this. This is the result of going to war with 2 countries, and you suggest we go to war with roughly 50 more? It simply won't happen. Not for a cause Americans don't support nor would they have anything to gain, and if America is out, the other super-powers that are only "so-so" on homosexuality will also be out (basically all of Eastern Europe and all of Asia). This leaves you with a rag-tag team of Canada, most of Western Europe, South Africa, Australia and the bulk of South America. Ignoring that very few of these countries actually have legalized gay marriage and would also most likely opt-out without the support of the U.S., Russia or China, these countries simply don't have the militaristic strength to take on roughly 50 countries. Furthermore, this is something that isn't guaranteed to succeed even if you can get some kind of international military agreement on the issue. Consider how long the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have lasted. Even with the might of the (arguably) strongest military force on the planet, we're still talking about over a decade of war; And why has it taken so long? Guerrilla insurgents. The thing is, even if you can somehow take out the combined military might of roughly 50 countries with little more than what Canada, Australia and England bring to the table (and of those three, only Canada actually has gay-marriage. You really want to place your bets on Canada?), if the people of these countries don't agree with you, they will fight you with guerrilla warfare, making actual success virtually impossible. In conclusion, invading and imposing our views on homosexuality onto these countries (a morally ambiguous initiative already) just isn't feasible. You simply can not force tolerance at the point of a gun. All you will succeed in producing is violence and death -- that is, if you could somehow manage to produce the miracle necessary to even get the idea off the ground on a global scale in the first place. I appreciate and, to an extent, agree with my opponent's position, but the situation is matter of factly too complicated for such a wide-eyed approach (no offence). I look forward to my opponent's response. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://en.wikipedia.org...3. http://costofwar.com...