I understand. We have surveillence technology that are the best in the world, that we probably aren't using, which we should. I think we should have a correlation between multiple countries, including some of the groups trying to fight ISIS in Syria. I think we would have more casualties if we only send some troops and try to fight them, than if we sent all of our troops and overwhelmed them. There's no good solution to a group of terrorists who kill anyone and everyone they come across that won't join them. They work undercover basically. We wear uniforms, they don't. There's no easy or good solution, and people will die whether we do nothing, or do everything. They have the capabilities to last many more years to come, though, and they're obly growing bigger and becoming an increasingly greater threat in America and other countries. I'm saying innocents will die, and more than we would like, but it's really a matter of "us vs. them" and we can try our best decrease the collateral damage, but it will be impossible to remove it completely. Military action in today's age is about being smart, not having the bigger gun. That's why I said it would focus on surveillence and intelligence to coordinate the military actions, and even though it's flawed, we can't wait for it to be perfect 100 years from now.

I took it as you saying we shouldn't bomb them and that what you think I'm saying is bomb everything and everywhere we think they might be, essentially "bomb their favorite colors" because it relates to them.