[the]

The problem with the analogy is that I think the vast majority of people don't have a problem with concept of US soldiers dying in combat. Just like most don't have a problem with the concept of 3K people dying pursuing a semi-dangerous hobby.

Lots of soldiers were lost in WWII, which is sad, but most feel was necessary and they lost their lives for a good cause doing what they agreed to do. Lots of people die each year in the US pursing various dangerous and semi-dangerous hobbies, which they choose to do. In both instances, there is no public outrage or complaint.

It's the "cause" people are fighting in this current case. And, yes, in some way, people are using soldier's deaths to support their cause (i.e. that this is a wrong war), but there is a logical link. People who think the war wasn't a mistake/the worst decision ever probably wouldn't mind as much if US soldiers weren't dying. It's a legit ground to use to argue the cause. Heck, I wouldn't mind the ill-conceived war either, if US soldiers weren't dying and it wasn't costing us billions a day.

If a bike company made a bike that was randomly packed with explosives and blew up 3K people per year, and cost the US a trillion dollars, with no end in sight, there would be public criticism or debate on how to end it, I think.