??? You said "It's about time Iraqis die for Iraqi freedom".
What sort of "context" overturns the plain fact that you're literally wishing for more Iraqis to die than already have?
I think you'll find overwhelming support for that position.
I think you'll find overwhelming support for the position that all of Paris Hilton's activities are fascinating. Don't care.
I assume you'd prefer our soldiers walk a beat indefinitely in Iraq's major cities, protecting Iraqis and getting shot at or blown up while the Iraqi government diddles itself and takes vacations.
You present a false choice. If more Iraqis were dying, would this make American soldiers safer? How?
The specific issue of patrols is not one that I have a fixed position on. I assume our generals know better than I how to achieve our goals in Iraq; if they've decided it's important to show a force presence by having regular patrols, so be it.
And what does the Iraqi parliament have to do with anything? Let's say they don't go on vacation (as you're complaining about). How will that make American soldiers safer?
But you'd better be ready to enlist because Americans won't enlist for it in the numbers required.
If recruitment shrinks below needed levels, we can adjust as necessary. Whether I personally join the military will have no effect on the matter one way or another. This is a particularly dumb form of the "chickenhawk" argument.