A Debate on the word 'United'

Well, me and my friends had this hour long debate on 'United'.
Can you figure out what this word means?
"Combined into a single entity."
Thats an ordinary definition. Usually we use it in a broader context. Allied nations have united in the war on terrorism. Well, yeah exactly. Here we use the word united against an entity, terrorism.

Most sentences using the word united are bred in the same context. So most sentences having the word united have three entities/groups. Two of them get together and the third one is still divided from the two, or better to say, stands as a platform against whom the first two entities unite.

So what if this third entity didn't exist at all? Say there was no terrorism at all! Would the Allied nations unite then? What would we say? "The Allied Nations have united!" Against what? will be the casual question raised. If two groups are uniting without a third entity, we would prefer to use some other words instead, like e.g. The Allied nations have strengthened their political ties, or improved their business relations etc. If two entities were on war, we would rather say that the two entities now have settled for peace.

So whenever we use the word UNITED, there has to be three entities minimum. Two that unite, and third which serves as the basis of unity.

As a matter of conclusion, the word UNITED is quite ironic. Apart from actually consolidating two entities, it makes sure that their exists a boundary/division with the third one. Hence there can be no unity without division, or better to say, division preludes and succeeds unity.

Irony hence proved... :-)