[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1294685872' post='2571210']
Perhaps you should take it instead as a sign that a fair number of people are sitting around drumming their fingers, mumbling "well, get on with it!" You do have something planned I hope other than waiting for another opportunity to attack Pacifica again or picking off a mid-tier alliance on a trumped up CB I hope.
[/quote]
What exactly do you suggest we do to relieve you of your boredom? There are probably two options for MK in terms of foreign policy. The first is that we sit around doing nothing. You state you do not want this. The second is your stated preferred course of action. Given that interest in global politics revolves around war, I imagine this route involves bringing about war sooner than it might currently (but please correct me if I am wrong). To accelerate the prospect of war, there is a required change in relationship towards other alliances. This might be against those within our group of allies or against those outside it. You will disapprove of any action against those outside because it will necessarily involve "waiting for another opportunity to attack [an alliance on the other side] again" (which impliedly involves well-founded [i]casus belli[/i]) [i]or[/i] "picking off [an alliance on the other side] again" (which impliedly involves weak [i]casus belli[/i]). What remains? The option for MK to act against its allies. This is not going to lead to a satisfactory outcome given that acting against the interests of allies does not fit with the Hal ideology that loyalty should prevail above all. Assuming that you choose to disown that policy in the name of developing some intrigue in the world's politics, you should note that, because ties are now so intertwined, MK simply does not have the power to break the core of the cluster of alliances it is in up. Even if it chose to alienate a significant number of allies, it is difficult to imagine that all other intra-group ties would be severed, meaning that MK would be likely to remain on the stronger side of the treaty web no matter what.
And no, I am not advocating either option, just pointing out that you will be displeased with whatever ends up happening.