57% now support sending U.S. ground troops to fight ISIS

[All Along The Watchtower]

there's no dialog left here.  you accord the USA with a right to use violence around the world in order to spread "liberal, democratic values".  you believe every society around the world has to accept these values or they'll be subject to invasion.  and you believe that so long as anyone (not even a state) is plotting or thinking of plotting some violent act within the US, the US has the right to use violence in attempt to stop it, without consulting anyone else.

it's all Imperial mentality 101, shared by doves and hawks.  the only real factor is whether it's "worth it" in terms of financial and human cost.

I clearly didn't say that.  We can use violence to defend ourselves from armed attacks in a proportional way.  If Yemen allows Al Qaeda to operate in their country and plan attacks on us, they've given up the right to complain when we defend ourselves.  If the failed states in the Middle East could arrest their terrorist elements, there would be no need to use military force.  

I understand you're edgy and anti-American and all.  But, at least come up with more original ideas.

You mean the governments that the United States and its allies have (historically and currently) propped up? Whether it be the House of Saud (as if Wahhabism has nothing to do with al-Qaeda or ISIS, et. al...), the Mubarak regime (look at what happened to them), or even in the not-too-distant past, Saddam Hussein's Baathist dictatorship (before he went "rogue"), modern Middle Eastern governments have tended to be undemocratic client states, as a general rule.

If you wonder why "they" hate "us", then you haven't been paying attention.

[All Along The Watchtower]

there's no dialog left here.  you accord the USA with a right to use violence around the world in order to spread "liberal, democratic values".  you believe every society around the world has to accept these values or they'll be subject to invasion.  and you believe that so long as anyone (not even a state) is plotting or thinking of plotting some violent act within the US, the US has the right to use violence in attempt to stop it, without consulting anyone else.

it's all Imperial mentality 101, shared by doves and hawks.  the only real factor is whether it's "worth it" in terms of financial and human cost.

I clearly didn't say that.  We can use violence to defend ourselves from armed attacks in a proportional way.  If Yemen allows Al Qaeda to operate in their country and plan attacks on us, they've given up the right to complain when we defend ourselves.  If the failed states in the Middle East could arrest their terrorist elements, there would be no need to use military force.  

I understand you're edgy and anti-American and all.  But, at least come up with more original ideas.

You mean the governments that the United States and its allies have (historically and currently) propped up? Whether it be the House of Saud (as if Wahhabism has nothing to do with al-Qaeda or ISIS, et. al...), the Mubarak regime (look at what happened to them), or even in the not-too-distant past, Saddam Hussein's Baathist dictatorship (before he went "rogue"), modern Middle Eastern governments have tended to be undemocratic client states, as a general rule.

If you wonder why "they" hate "us", then you haven't been paying attention.

Very lazy, slipshod thinking there. 

There are a few failed states around the world that pose a terrorist threat to the US.  Yemen and Somalia are the two purest examples.  The US didn't exactly prop those governments up.  Both were Soviet aligned during the Cold War.  We also didn't back Iraq during the Saddam era.  So, that theory I don't buy.

And, is our dealing with corrupt dictators a major source of terrorism?  No.  I don't see much connection.  The fact that we had an embargo on Iraq garnered us much more criticism in the Arab world than our brief military dealings during the Iran-Iraq War.  Muslims fanatics hate democracy anyway, so would they want to punish the US for support anti-democratic regimes? 

By your logic, the US should be seeing terrorist attacks from Chile, Indonesia and Nicaragua as revenge for our misdeeds in the Cold War.  And, indeed, that hasn't happened.  Islamic terrorism isn't revenge against the United States for what we've done wrong. 

I think we in the US tend to look at our own agenda and cast the rest of the world as purely reacting to us.  That's pretty ignorant.  Foreign terrorist groups mostly care about their own countries and they have objectives of their own. 

What I meant is that US foreign policy decisions over a number of decades haven't exactly garnered the US and its allies much support for the "Global War on Terror" within many Islamic countries (or many other countries in general). I'm not saying its all our fault, but if we are serious about changing hearts and minds...