: >>> 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!
======================================================
While the two authors above make interesting points, they have missed one point on which I would like to comment. The McDonald's/War phenom. is not a statement on the new and mystical nature of McDonald's, but the new and changing definition of war. A "hot" war is a traditional, men-kill-men war. But war today is new and improved! It can be a cold war (obviuosly), a cyberwar, a biowar, genewar, infowar, or (my favorite) a tradewar.
I have not done the research, but doubt that the McDonald's (fundamentally a trade organization) / War theory holds up under all definitions of war, especially the idea of trade wars.
None.
