>>> The New York Times article that claims that no two countries with McDonald's
>>> haven't declared war on one another is false. Take the United States
>>> (which of course has thousands of McDonalds) has attacked a number of
>>> countries, in fact very recently.>> The 'theory' doesn't say that "no country with McDonald's" has never
>> declared war on another country" it says that "no country with McDonald's"
>> has never declared war on another country THAT HAS A MCDONALD'S"
>> It which case the theory seems correct but doesn't change that fact that it
>> is totally meaningless and proves nothing at all about McDonald's
Your point well taken. Perhaps there is a comment that can be made here.
As US foreign policy "takes over the economically", i.e. first through covert or otherwise warfare and "establishes" a US sanctioned elitist ruling class, this then permits the flow of US dollars/businesses to set up shop in what is now a "US" friendly environment, since McDonald's is one of the biggest players, they would be one of the first in.
Having said all this then the article DOES MAKE SENSE, i.e. once the US has established this control over that control (although indirect), there in no longer a need to "attack" since they basically already control it!
