Why has 2 countries with a mac donald's never gone to war?

Question

A logical explanation for this question must be given? if possible a argument in essay form, which will be posted on the net...

Answer 1

why has 2 countries with burger king's never gone to war? it just happens to be and also i don't even think that is accurate. i have to check into that

Answer 2

"Hey, ya got any catsup back there?"

Micky D's Countries never go to war because anybody that is clumsy enough to eat there is part of the cholesterol killing machine, therefor they don't even realize their identity has already been sucked dry from American's big industrial fast food wasteland; The illusion of peace, but these Shake 'n bake communities, everything is quick n' fast, jus like sex, right? Ever wonder why this generation needs Viagra? Fast food, fast life, even faster death, why go to war when the punks are killing themselves on there own? Blind to the truth, and spending their life savings on crap! Governments and companies make money with this kind of war, and not spend a dime they don't make back from you ten fold! Now that's war.

So, you sure there's no fightin' goin' on out there in
Micky D-land?

Answer 3

That is easy.

Any country that would allow a McDonalds to be started within their borders has basically the same idealism as other countries with McDonalds.

However, your question is flawed. There are many countries who have gone to war that have Mcdonalds in them. Germany and most of europe have mcdonalds, as does japan, they have all gone to war against other countries that have them.

True, they did not have them at the time, but you did say
"NEVER GONE TO WAR"
which they have.

Answer 4

Your all idiots, those countries didnt have McD's when they went to war with one another, that or one had it and the other didn't, and that is why that war started.

The Spanish American war was about McD's entering Mexico and getting all those taco eaters to eat burgers instead.

McD's owns all the countries it is in. The whole reason America is at war with Iran is because there is no McD's there, they are fighting for the ability to build McD's in the Middle East.

The oil, the war on terror, the war for democracy crap.... all crap

its all about McD's taking over the world and then controlling us all through their giant food monopoly. Filthy bastards...

...OMG they are banging on my door now, they know that I a know the truth, spread the world McD's must die Omg they are in ahahahdhf;auhpfuh puahcusc
ac
c\c.....

Answer 5

The simplest way I can think to express it is that people who realize that they stand to lose more by going to war than by not going to war will not go to war. It isn't McDonalds in and of itself. It could be KFC or Pizza Hut, or it could be libraries, or hospitals. When a country starts to have a good standard of living and safety and comfort, they will work to protect those things for themselves, rather than risk losing them.

(Any dictator knows that he can only push the people so far, because when they realize that they being starved to death, it takes concentration camps to hold them in.)

Desperate people will not put up with it. It takes a special kind of fear combined with despair and self-deception to allow a dictator to take hold, the way you can boil a frog slowly in a pot and he won't jump out because he doesn't realize he is being killed quickly enough.

For example, foreign terorists fear that we will bring security and prosperity to the nations they currently infest. People will be less likely to risk losing their prosperity and security, once they have it. That is why the terrorists have to terrorize their own people as well as us, and keep pumping their young school children full of hate for us. Otherise, the terrorists would have to do their own sucide bombings and we would soon be rid of them. It takes a special kind of despair and a soecial kind of self-deception (i.e., promises of 72 virgins, etc.) to get someone to do that.

So it is not specifically McD's... they are only an indicator.

Answer 6

I believe you are incorrect in this. There are McDonald's restaurants in both Argentina and Great Britain, yet those nations fought the Falklands War in the 1980s, for one counter-example. (You also apparently need to review elementary English grammar, such as subject-verb agreement, correct forms of indefinite articles, etc., as one who can not write clearly can not be relied upon to think clearly.)

Answer 7

It's something in the fries. I think it's making us all sterile and unable to produce testosterone. It's a proven fact that countries whose inhabitants lack testosterone never go to war.

Answer 8

Canada and the US went to war, and they both have McD's. US & Mexico also...and the list goes on and on...I think you should revise your question before asking for an essay.

Answer 9

My goodness - you're right. I wouldn't have believed it:
"IN THE season of goodwill to all men, a new recipe for world peace has been found: Big Mac, large fries and a chocolate milkshake.

New research in America has uncovered a previously unrecognised fact of diplomacy: no country with a McDonald's has ever gone to war with another.

The 40-year-old burger chain, founded by Ray Kroc, last week extended its international chain to Belarus and Tahiti, the 100th and 101st members of the united nations of McDonald's. The spread of burger imperialism since the late Sixties has apparently also heralded an unprecedented era of love and harmony wherever fries are frying.

McDonald's quietly confirms what is being dubbed the "Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention". Its most remarkable achievement has been in the Middle East, with the opening of a kosher restaurant in Israel in 1993. There are now 18 branches in Egypt, with the chain shortly extending to Jordan. The McDonald's in Saudi Arabia closes five times a day for Muslim prayer.

The theory has been tested by McDonald's international division at its world headquarters in Illinois. Researchers at the "McDonald's University" last week confirmed the thesis, first conceived by Thomas Friedman in the New York Times.

The McDonald's family of nations extended to Canada in 1967, and has since spread across the world, with more than 15,000 branches. It includes such traditional enemies as France and Germany, China and Japan, Greece and Turkey and Russia and most of eastern Europe, including Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, and Dublin and Belfast.

The closest the theory has come to being challenged is the Falklands war in 1982. McDonald's has been operating in Britain since 1974, but did not open in Argentina until November 1986, when the country's return to democracy was more significant than the quality of its beef.

Friedman's thesis proposes that: "When a country reaches a certain level of economic development, when it has a middle class big enough to support a McDonald's, it becomes a McDonald's country. And people in McDonald's countries don't like to fight wars. They like to wait in line for burgers."

According to James Cantalupo, the 52-year-old president of McDonald's International, McDonald's is a "symbol ... of international maturity". He claims: "I don't think that there is a country out there we haven't gotten inquiries from. I have a parade of ambassadors and trade representatives in here regularly to tell us about their country and why McDonald's would be good for them."

McDonald's international division is now the biggest part of the company. Its annual sales of more than $4 billion are greater than the gross domestic product of many third-world nations. Cantalupo says McDonald's chooses to put its money into what he calls "the more well developed economies - those which are growing and those that are large". The risks in other countries are, he says, "probably getting too great".

A number of international relations experts have warned that if the company continues to expand at its present rate, war may yet be inevitable. Francis Fukuyama, author of The End of History, says he would "not be surprised if, in the next 10 years, several of these McDonald's nations go to war with each other".

Contrary to the company's view, Fukuyama believes that the average income in many countries where there are branches of the burger chain is probably too low to guarantee economic and political stability.

Friedman describes this as the "tip-over" point, "at which a country, by integrating with the global economy, opening itself up to foreign investment and empowering its consumers, permanently restricts its capacity for troublemaking and promotes gradual democratisation and widening peace".

What is also significant is the sophistication of McDonald's international division in recognising that previously warlike groups of nations are ready for the message of peace, love and a Happy Meal. The Middle East is the most obvious example where, despite the uncertain atmosphere, the Golden Arches have spread over an ever-wider area.

Significantly, the company has stayed away from most of the former Yugoslavia. Its branch in Belgrade was closed by the western economic embargo: McDonald's is to be found only in Slovenia, which stayed out of the conflict.

The company has entered the South African market, but is wary of much of the rest of the continent. Civil wars are excluded from the theory, but even in the former Soviet Union its record is unblemished. During the attempted coup against Boris Yeltsin in 1993, the Moscow McDonald's nourished combatants from both sides.

Those outside the McDonald's family, on the other hand, are dealt with ruthlessly, most noticeably by the United States. Vietnam, Iraq, Cambodia and Somalia are all Big Mac-free zones.

The great diplomatic question for the 21st century may yet be how to pacify countries who have found a seat at the United Nations, but are not yet regarded as "advanced" enough to be suitable for a branch of McDonald's.

Friedman worries that there will be a backlash from poorer nations unable to benefit from the globalisation of the world economy. "They may feel that their traditional culture will be steamrollered by it and fear that they won't eat the Big Mac, the Big Mac will eat them."

British diplomats reacted sniffily to the McDonalds' theory. In the manner of former Chinese foreign minister Chou En-lai, who famously commented that it was "too early to tell" the historic impact of the French Revolution, Sir Nico Henderson, former Ambassador to Washington, commented: "It is rather short a timescale to measure the efficacy of food as a peacemaker."

Tristan Garel-Jones, a former Foreign Office minister, was intrigued by the theory. "On the one hand, it is a pretty fair general proposition that one shouldn't visit countries that don't have a McDonald's, on the ground that they are unlikely to meet minimum standards of hygiene and food safety," he reflected.

"On the other hand, that could be said to be taking the EC's desire for harmonisation to its logical conclusion - the thing tastes the same wherever you are. Whether that is desirable is a matter of opinion."

The biggest test for Pax McDonald's is likely to come from the East. India opened its first - beef-free - McDonald's in October, but its arch-enemy Pakistan is still outside the fold. The arrival of McDonald's in China may be the best hope for the region - or the most signal failure of the Golden Arches theory.

The good news, however, is that - for the present - relations between Andorra and Hong Kong, Sweden and El Salvador, and Iceland and New Zealand, have never been better."


Unless you count "legal war":

"... except in the courts

The defendants in Britain's longest libel case are sceptical, says Greg Neale


MCDONALD'S nations may not make war on other McDonald's nations, but the company can still provoke strong emotions. As the burger firm goes from strength to strength commercially, it has at the same time become a symbol that prompts protest.

In Britain, McDonald's has gone into the record books for bringing a libel suit which has become the longest-ever court case in the country.

"No country with a McDonald's goes to war with another country that has one? Mmmm ... maybe it's because they've nothing worthwhile to fight about." Dave Morris, who, with his fellow "McLibel Two" campaigner Helen Steel, is defending the court case, was gently sarcastic yesterday.

For 313 days, and without the benefit of legal aid, Morris and Steel have been defending themselves in the High Court against McDonald's 1990 claims that they had libelled the company with a pamphlet claiming it was selling unhealthy food, causing environmental destruction in the Third World and exploiting low-paid workers.

On Friday the last speech ended: Mr Justice Bell is not expected to deliver his judgment before Easter.

Morris and Steel both insisted yesterday that they believed the court case has illustrated the company's failings and inconsistencies.

"The statistics tell their own story, from the estimated 500,000 tonnes of waste packaging to the more than 200,000 million chickens killed each year for McDonald's products," Morris said. "I feel exhausted, but exhilarated, by what we have managed to make public in court."

McDonald's, which is believed to have spent several million pounds in legal fees, insists that it brought the case to protect its reputation. Morris and Steel argue that the company is using its financial muscle to stifle legitimate criticism.

Certainly, the trial has not helped McDonald's public relations. In one exchange, a company medical expert was read the statement, "a diet high in fat, sugar, animal products and salt, and low in fibre, vitamins and minerals, is linked with cancer of the breast and bowel and heart diseases".

Agreeing that this was a reasonable claim, he was then told it was an extract from the allegedly libellous pamphlet.

But over and above the arguments of how McDonald's treats the environment or its workers, or the healthiness or otherwise of its products, the impression survives that the emotions the company provokes are also about something else.

For political radicals such as Helen Steel, "it is about the way a multi-national company can exploit people and the environment in pursuit of profit. There has to be a better way of organising societies." For conservatives, it is arguably the ubiquity of the Golden Arches symbol which grates.

McDonald's has prospered while promoting a homogenous image around the world. Perhaps it is that which rankles with people who want to preserve something more distinct, more local, more their own."