Who was in the wrong here?
Who was in the wrong here?
Iron man for being a freedom hating (((government))) shill
Considering the previous Captain America proved that even high clearance government agencies like SHIELD could be infiltrated and controlled by terrorist organizations like HYDRA, Tony was objectively wrong.
Tony was completely in the right for wanting to wreck Buckys shit. And I'm glad he did.
Such a good movie. No one was in the wrong. Both had good points.
incoming autism
The thing about the Accords is that on the surface it sounds like the most responsible and reasonable choice. The Avengers are extremely powerful and potentially dangerous, and their actions have massive concequences for the entire world. Oversight and accountability is a given, of course. You don't want extreme power like that getting out of control.
The problems come in pretty much immediately when you start to think about how it actually works. Not even discussing the practicality of it, but just the principles. The Avengers as they exist before the accords are a totally independent organization of heroes coming together for genuinely noble and purely charitable reasons. Literally the only reason they exist is to save people and prevent world-ending disasters. As a collective, they have no goal or even ideology outside of helping others. They are independent of any agenda, ideology or goal outside of saving the world in a purely reactive way.
When you put them under the Accords, however, they stop being independent heroes with no agenda outside of saving people and instead become government soldiers fighting for whatever agenda said government has. Suddenly, the Avengers stop being world savers and instead become an extension of the government arm, pawns of geo-political chess-games. I mean just look at some of the shit governments like Russia and the United States pull around the world in order to play chess with their own power, for their own gain. Suddenly the Avengers aren't fighting to save New York from obliteration, they're fighting to destabilize a government of some country so that the United States or whoever else can gain resources and a foothold in geopolitics. They're not fighting for purely good reasons, they're just tools of a government.
cont.
Cap. Should've cut the bucky cord.
That's not even mentioning that in the MCU, it has been shown that a huge section of the US government was secretly working towards the goals of HYDRA and the establishment of a new world order at the cost of millions of innocent lives, and even managed to get superheroes like Cap to do their dirty work via controlling him through government. This is shown clearly in the opening of the Winter Soldier that Cap didn't want to do political black ops so SHIELD could have a strategic advantage against the world, he just wanted to save the people on the boat. That clash of mission goals on the tanker demonstrates the difference clearly between an Avengers team under the Accords and one free of them.
Then there's the practicality of it. The UN is not renowned for it's frequency of international votes or meetings, nor the speed of it's bureaucracy. If the Avengers had been under the Accords and the UN during the events of the first movie, the invasion would have gotten a lot further than it did and New York would be a nuked out crater.
You get a demonstration of the impracticality of the accords in Civil War itself. Tony pretty much immediately breaks them by going to the Siberian base. That kind of independent action theoretically shouldn't even occur.
Overall, whilst accountability and oversight are nice ideas that sound great when presented vaguely as concepts, and as gut reactions to emotionally testing incidents, in practicality they'd be a horrible horrible idea and effectively destroy the Avengers entirely.
Reading this I just realized that if they were going to be working for the UN that would make them the first purely UN military force, I'm surprised that didn't come up.
This. It's pretty fucking stupid that people would be freaking out because of "muh innocent people dying". Like yeah there is gonna be some collateral damage, but come the fuck on, what happens if the Avengers don't do their job is much fucking worse. Do you save a few buildings toppling over at the expense of the entire world?
integrated horizontal and vertical production
Hawkeye for leaving instead of banging Velma.
Yes. That's another point. Accountability and oversight aren't going to make an alien invasion suddenly less damaging or improve the abilities of the Avengers to save people.
In fact, it'll make it worse. Can you imagine if the Avengers had to wait for the UN to gather, discuss and vote on action whilst Loki stole the Tesseract and opened a portal above NYC or Ultron was lifting Sokovia into the sky?
The only reason people really support the accords in the movie is because of how vaguely the idea is sold to the audience by Tony and others. It's not "Let's fight for the government." it's "Let's put ourselves in check" which means fuckall in practicality.
I agreed with Cap. regarding the accord, But I found myself rooting for Tony when he was fighting him and Bucky.
Cap for not killing Tony.
Cap
You mean Tony for not killing Bucky?
No. Fuck Tony.
tony let that black lady trigger his emotions and he let emotions dictate his way of thinking.
he wouldn't listen to reason at any point, it was completely blinded by ethos.
also ethos was black ironmans biggest weapon in the conversations.
>defending bucky
Wew
blaming bucky for things he did under mind control is like blaming people for things their ancestors did hundreds of year ago...
oh yeah...((()))
>bucky is weak willed
Don't see how that makes him defendable.