Want peace? Get a McDonalds! America doesn't invade countries with Mickey D's

[Roxi]

http://news.fresno.edu/07/26/2007/mcdonalds-theory-conflict-prevention-peace-through-franchising

North Korea and Iran have it all wrong. Their goal is to prevent U.S. invasion by having nuclear weapons, since the United States has never invaded a nuclear power. Since the United States has, in the last 40 years, invaded about 36 non-nuclear powers, the concern is rational for those identified as part of the axis of evil.

Countries with a McDonald's franchise don't invade each other, as a rule. India and Pakistan pose a distinction if one gets into details about Kashmir, where the boundaries are in dispute. The U.S. intervention in Panama in 1989 could be an exception, and the Israel-Lebanon activities another, but the principle holds true otherwise.

 

[Weston White]

I would say that it is more-so true that this merely serves as an indicator that the nation has become Americanized, socially democratic, respectively "untouchable". As well all know it is the Fortune 500 that really run nation-states and implant puppet governments to do their bidding.

 

[Elwar]

I may get a McDonalds installed on my property in case SHTF.

 

[paulbot24]

If you get one of those McDonalds signs that counts how many billions served and stick that out in front of your place, it might attract some unwanted curiosity...

 

[freejack]

Die from nuclear annihilation or heart disease? Hmm....

 

[John F Kennedy III]

I would say that it is more-so true that this merely serves as an indicator that the nation has become Americanized, socially democratic, respectively "untouchable". As well all know it is the Fortune 500 that really run nation-states and implant puppet governments to do their bidding.

Isn't Iran becoming highly westernized? Do they have a McDonalds?

 

[Xenophage]

The underlying philosophical idea is that capitalist countries have no vested interest in going to war against one another. When trade and commerce are an *option* it is always more profitable to both sides to peacefully resolve their conflicts.

This is a bit idealistic, however. The premise that peace and commerce are preferable to war is true, but the premise that societies will always act in their rational self-interest is false.

The extra incentive to act civilized, however, is never a bad thing.

 

[KCIndy]

From Wikipedia, for what it's worth...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Arches#Golden_Arches_Theory_of_Conflict_Prevention

In his book The Lexus and the Olive Tree, Thomas L. Friedman discussed the Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention, also known as "the McDonald's Doctrine". In short, Friedman asserted: "No two countries that both had McDonald's had fought a war against each other since each got its McDonald's"........

.......The theory was false as soon as it hit print, as the 1989 United States invasion of Panama was one of the first such conflicts. Shortly after the book was published, the NATO bombing of Serbia again proved the theory wrong, though in a later edition Friedman argued that this exception proved the rule: the war ended quickly, he argued, partly because the Serbian population did not want to lose their place in a global system "symbolised by McDonald's" (Friedman 2000: 252–253). Friedman framed this theory in terms of McDonald's Golden Arches "with tongue slightly in cheek" (Friedman 2005). Recently, Friedman has updated the theory with the Dell Theory of Conflict Prevention (Friedman 2005). Yet in 1999, McDonald's host countries India and Pakistan fought a war over the Kashmir Border known as the Kargil War. Though the war was not fought in all theatres (such as Rajasthan and Punjab borders), both countries had moblised their military all along the border and both countries also flaunted their nuclear capabilities. At least two more wars between McDonald's hosting nations have occurred since the NATO bombing of Serbia: the 2006 war between Israel and Lebanon which had been ongoing since 1973, with South Lebanon occupied until May 2000, which did not hinder the establishment of McDonald's franchises in Israel and Lebanon in 1993 and 1998, respectively. The two countries engaged in a brief war in the summer of 2006, although the Lebanese Armed Forces were not a party to the fighting, the Israel Defense Forces action being taken instead against the paramilitary group Hezbollah; and the conflict between Georgia and Russia over South Ossetia occurred in 2008.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Correlation does not equal causation.

Countries with a McDonald's franchise don't invade each other, as a rule. India and Pakistan pose a distinction if one gets into details about Kashmir, where the boundaries are in dispute. The U.S. intervention in Panama in 1989 could be an exception, and the Israel-Lebanon activities another, but the principle holds true otherwise.

LOL. In other words: It's true ... except when it isn't.

 

[dannno]

The McDonald's franchisee in my city...

I was at the McDonald's in Moscow in 1993...

This guy spends a lot of time at McDonalds.

 

[Cowlesy]

From Wikipedia, for what it's worth...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Arches#Golden_Arches_Theory_of_Conflict_Prevention

Thomas Friedman. That's all I needed to know to debunk the theory.

 

[Tod]

I THOUGHT there was something creepy about that red-haired dude in the clownsuit. Know we know: extortionist.