Nations Should Act With Military Force Against Countries That Execute Homosexuals

Rebuttals.Ways to Limit the War -- Not so fastMy opponent assumes that you can convince these countries to not execute their homosexuals by offering to accept them into our countries. First of all, this argument supports my position, NOT Pro's as it provides an alternative to military force against these nations -- which is what my opponent is trying to justify. Given this, I'm not actually required to argue against this position since it helps Con more than Pro, but I will regardless because it's a win-win scenario for me anyway. The problem is that these people consider homosexuality to be a sin against God. They don't want homosexuals simply gone, they want them dead or in prison waiting to die. The last thing they would want is to let them go free in a place that accepts them and even encourages them as homosexuals. They would sooner agree to life imprisonment for homosexuals and that isn't very likely either as none of these countries want to look like they are subservient to America or any other western nation. Consider the modern excuse given by these nations to justify their harsh punishments of homosexuals:"This treatment of homosexuals may seem barbaric to some, and many apologists have attempted to shift the blame for this hostility towards homosexuality onto "the adoption of European Victorian attitudes by the new Westernized elite." (1) Clearly, homosexuality is not an issue they are looking for our orders on.Not as Big As It Appears -- Perhaps Bigger The "50 countries" number was in response to Pro saying he opposes countries that punish persons for being homosexual (roughly 50 do so extensively) and given that these countries would aid the countries we do invade, even exclusively going to war with the ones that execute homosexuals will eventually result in (at least the equivalent of, even if not on paper) going to war with all of them as I had outlined in my original argument. Something else to consider, many of these countries do have the death penalty for homosexuals, they simply reserve it for "repeat offenders" rather than an initial punishment to better reflect the edicts of their religion:"In the Hanafi school of thought, the homosexual is first punished through harsh beating, and if he/she repeats the act, the death penalty is to be applied. As for the Shafi`i school of thought, the homosexual receives the same punishment as adultery (if he/she is married) or fornication (if not married). This means, that if the homosexual is married, he/she is stoned to death, while if single, he/she is whipped 100 times. Hence, the Shafi`i compares the punishment applied in the case of homosexuality with that of adultery and fornication." (2)An example of this is one of the countries Pro lists as not actually having the death sentence for homosexuals:UgandaPro claims that homosexuality is not a crime punishable by death in Uganda. This isn't entirely true. While Uganda doesn't kill their homosexuals outright, they will kill repeat "offenders", which isn't actually any better (3). In fact, David Kato, "considered the father of Uganda's gay rights movement", was beaten to death for his activism on January of 2011 (3). For this reason it is arguable that we must go to war officially with these 50 or so countries, rather than just the few with execution as the initial punishment and deal with the military aid they receive as it comes.My opponent lists the 5-7 countries that have made homosexuality punishable by death. Going to war with this many countries alone already stands to require 2-3 times the cost of the two wars the U.S. is currently involved in at least, and going to war with these countries over their right to make their own laws (this is what dissenters will paint this as) will eventually result in going to war with all of them anyway. Consider the extent to which Iraq was aided against America. That was over an issue that was specifically against the Iraqi government. Imagine how much more support you could gather from fellow religious fundamentalists.Pro seems to acknowledge this as he goes on to provide reasons why we may not have to go to war with these countries. This is, once again, in direct contradiction to his position on the debate as pointed out in even the very title of the debate "Nations Should Act With Military Force Against Countries That Execute Homosexuals". My opponent has unwittingly argued for my position yet again as I am arguing that we shouldn't engage in militaristic force against these nations. Up until now I have chosen to argue against military action by providing reasons for why this is simply not feasible on a military level, but I am not limited to this argument and since my opponent has graciously offered another perspective on why military action is not needed I will quote his own argument and use it against him:"IranWe may be able to get nations to cooperate here over the current nuclear controversy.SudanWe could get help in taking over Sudan by signing an agreement with the Darfur rebels agreeing to secure their independence and use their plight as another talking point for getting help in invading Sudan.YemenAs with Saudi Arabia there's lots of oil here. We can also argue that their government is ineffective against the Al Qaeda rebels in the country and that a new regime must be installed to effectively deal with them.http://en.wikipedia.org......NigeriaNigeria is a federal state in Africa. Homosexuals are sometimes executed in the mostly Muslim northern provinces. There are all kinds of political rivalries in Nigeria based mostly on ethnic and religious lines. We could exploit these rivalries, enlisting the help of southern Nigeria, particular the Igbo people who once attempted to secede and start their own country of Biafra.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biafra"I've excluded Sudan, Saudi Arabia and Somalia as my opponent suggests ways in which we can go to war with them effectively rather than explaining why we may not have to. However, these reasons are largely speculative and so I ask my opponent to provide substantial reasons why this could work rather than merely conjectural reasoning. In conclusion, military action is still not feasible for the reasons I've given in my original argument and defended here. Also, due to my opponent's argument provided in round 2, I also have the argument that military action may not even be needed in many cases. I thank my opponent for helping my position, but I would much rather have him stick to his own argument in the future. It is now my opponents responsibility to both justify why military action is needed against these countries (despite his arguments otherwise so far) as well as prove such a military victory is even feasible.I look forward to my opponent's response.1. http://wikiislam.net...2. http://wikiislam.net...3. http://en.wikipedia.org...4. http://en.wikipedia.org...