Talk:Four nations/@comment-68.192.4.126-20120611004442/@comment-5179242-20120614185217

@ MagicalChez

Well, that's like saying America isn't really a nation because it was once part of the British Colonial Empire. And the same goes for Canada, Australia, and India. I'm sure that if you asked pre-Revolution British royalty, they would've called American independence a contradiction to established world order. But just because they didn't like the idea of American independence doesn't mean America can't call itself an indepentent country. The same goes for justifying The United Republic of Nations' position as it's own politcal union. Contradiction won't affect this new country.

Also, you called The United Republic of Nations a joint thing (the meaning of that is slightly ambiguous). I would disagree. Representatives are the very embodiment of equality. You need representatives if you are going to call your nation a republic (henceforth, that is why republics were formerly known as Representative Democracies). The United States uses representatives, but that doesn't make the country a joint thing. It just so happens that instead of assigning representatives by territory, The United Republic Council decided to use bending arts.