I do agree that the government is corrupt, but there also corrupt villains and private organizations as well. Hell, Tony should honestly be in prison after what he did in AOU. No one is right.
It's also funny because if you read the accords as published on the MCU wiki, they don't even apply to Tony's Iron Man (edit: his suit, for clarification, as I realize my language here is not clear) at all because advanced prosthetics (and hence, the suit(s)) don't count as being enhanced. Edit: Since the point is contentious, TONY would have to sign as a member of the Avengers anyway, regardless of the nature of his suit.
Zaid I’m glad someone cares about sources. The MCU wiki. Go to the section on Regulations. After all the various human rights violations they have a paragraph stating that while advanced technology counts as enhancement, specifically Asgardian or Chitari weapons, advanced prosthetics do not. Although I will concede that the next paragraph does indicate that Stark would be effected, because it states that all members of the Avengers are subject to the accords even if they aren’t enhanced, so I suppose my original comment was in error. I still object to the accords on the basis of their human rights violations regardless.
The best part of this is both are right. Tony is right; they need checks and balances. Steve is right in that the government isn't the best provider of it.
would make one correction to that Tony is right; they need checks and balances. Steve is right in that the government isn't always the best provider of it just like people are not always the best provider of it . but just because something could turn out bad doesn't mean we should not try aim for a perfect world one should always aim for a perfect world and when you fall short see why you went wrong and look to see how you could improve that is how things advance
@@FEEonline , imagine Cap deciding that refugees need his personal protection and start busting up border patrol facilities left and right. What is he going to do with the hundreds of parentless children who are now "freed"?
@@mashac4402 he'd have to deal with that, but that's not really the point. The point is that as an individual, he would be held accountable for that action. He'd have been sued for damages, probably arrested, and he'd have to bear personal costs for the consequences of his decisions -- which given his character, he has always been aware of and willing to bear (see also: his speech in Winter Soldier about the price of freedom). On the other hand, just to give an example from this last week in the real world, US congressmen who sexually harassed people didn't even personally bear the cost of their own court cases until just now. abcnews.go.com/Politics/congress-reaches-deal-ending-taxpayer-funded-sexual-harassment/story?id=59783415 And that's to say nothing about anyone bearing the costs of decisions that get people killed, or decisions that wreak havoc on the environment, or ones that result in displacement of thousands or millions of refugees... The worst thing that typically ever happens to a politician is that they don't get re-elected in a few years. Some end up with lucrative speaking tours and book deals to go talk about their experiences. That's not how it works for private individual citizens.
@@FEEonline , you are absolutely misinformed about "how it works for private individual citizens". There are already laws on the books absolving private individuals of responsibility for any damage done in cases of rescue. If I break your arm while pulling you out of a burning car, you cannot sue me for damages. This is done because forcing individuals to bear personal responsibility for damage done during rescue attempts would end all such actions. WIth Avengers, this is taken to a whole new level. They only continue to functions because they are never forced to face the consequences of their actions. Cap seems to think that this is normal. For example, they absolutely wreck an airport when they are asked to surrender. By your logic, they should be sued for destruction of property and pay for it. But they never accept that responsibility. They simply leave. They don't face the risk of losing their power and privileges as elected officials do. There are literally zero repercussions for Cap's actions, despite the damage they cause. Since there is no authority to limit what they do and take responsibility for the damage they cause, they can operate entirely unrestricted and with no accountability whatsoever. That's just vigilantism. We send people to jail for that.
@@mashac4402 good samaritan laws exist, yes. But they are actually quite limited (definitely not "absolving any responsibility for any damage") and they usually require a court or a judge to make determinations about whether or not they apply to individual cases. I absolutely *can* sue you if you break my arm during a rescue attempt, so that's simply untrue. It's happened many times, in fact. Here's one example: abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=6498405&page=1
To be fair government held accountable by the people putting them in charge we didn't ask for Captain America to go around the world killing people as he sees fit. Who holds Captain America responsible when he makes mistakes
Finally someone who isn’t blindly saying #teamironman or #teamcap. I like the both of them and they both make strong points and even though I personally like cap more just like you said the Accords are the issue here. Not who is right.
Idk how people are fully on team captain America buck killed his parents,Steve though he did earn his “powers” he progressed nothing to actually make it while tony stark made his own suit that can fly and shoot fricking lasers and that’s just his early suits and he didn’t get any help on all 84 of his suits including the Two war machine suits and Spider-Man suits and after that captain America beat him up with his friends and tony was down I mean beat a dead horse this and many other reason are why tony is mostly right
Too much government control is bad. Too much individual control is bad. Would you rather have an overbearing parent or an unruly toddler? Depends on who you ask.
@Alex Meggoe absolutely and the children will definitely grow. do the Cap ppl think the Avengers will stay only 6 people after 100 years have passed? how about 1000 years? no, the avengers will gain more and more power and with that power comes a great potential for destruction
Another example of politics in the real world. Many people are willing to let those in power get away with a slap on the wrist if they are or look like they’re remorseful about their actions. And there as just as many people who wouldn’t let such actions slide. It’s really interesting how the MCU adapts real world problems and situations to go along with superheroes and such.
@@neeloak1267 Except for Tony himself. In fact, Ultron was probably a big reason why he signed the Accords, he felt guilty, and decided he needed to be out in check incase he did something like that again. He doesn't think of himself as responsible enough anymore.
In the MCU, Captain America has a far better point when it comes to the events of Civil War. In the comics, the solution that Tony eventually comes up with is a far better solution: Create an internal registry of the real identities of superheroes known only to the superhero community, and have these people trained to use their powers so that if/when they decide to use them for any reason, they are far less likely to injure any bystanders. This creates a system of accountability for super-powered individuals, who can act how they see fit, but will have to justify their actions if things do go sour while their interveneing. Allowing heroes to self-govern is the best solution of both worlds, as it puts a system of accountability in place, but it also isn't run by any government that could use the heroes for political advantage.
Jimmy Fort Tony was no better, if not worse in the comics than he was in the movie. He, Reed, and Strange both exiled the Hulk into space by force, and sent a primed nuke after him, which slaughtered nearly the entire population of the planet, including the Hulk's newfound wife and future son. And that's not even mentioning grave robbing and cloning Thor, _their friend._ Tony reached absolutely unheard of levels of "being an arrogant asshole to the nth degree" in the _Civil War_ comic. He should never have been considered the "winner" in the end.
Tony did have the right idea but was very poorly executed, suffered from corruption from the start (SHIELD blackmailing heroes like Wonder Man or punishing the Thing for leaving the country) and made costly mistakes (Clor killing Ben Foster or using super villains who caused more death and destruction even when tagged) and the solution of using an multidimensional prison where the captured heroes were treated less than humanely. Though Cap also made terrible mistakes such as trusting the Punisher, making a deal with Fisk and loosing his way after the death of Ben, again he also had teh right idea but did not know how to end it in a way that no life or freedom was lost. But in the end Dark Reign proved that Steve's fears were well founded were they not?
Until that "self-governing group of superheroes" goes corrupt and overtakes countries, begins looting or goes all-out rampage. Just like "the self-governing lamd of the free", now led by corrupt and immoral politicians. Yep, great idea.
He also created a super prison in a pocket dimension, which was a borderline nazi concentration camp. He would put there anyone not willing to comply with the ideology, not neseserely villians, and villians got enlisted as special forces instead. So he basically politically imprisoned people
Tony had less people on his team, because they now know he was wrong, he has a robot on his team, his best friend on his team, and a teenager who didn't even care about what they're arguing about, and black panther doesn't wanna be on anyone's team, ge just wants to kill bucky so he went on iron man's team, and of course black widow switched, because she realized it's wrong
Probably because she spent enough time serving under governments in covert ops, she should know the dark underbelly of serving the shadowy imperialist reach governments tend to abuse. Giving a government governance over a small army of super humans is not a good idea unless the government in question was 100% transparent and 100% uncorruptable, so it's never a good idea because we know that'll never happen.
"Governments of the world can no longer tolerate" It feels like theyre simply using moral justification to get control of the avengers, for their own gains.
@Mackenzie Bauroth First of all : _"and whose architects were fired for it."_ That's a positive claim, please provide evidences and linked sources to back it up. Second of all, that's not the point. The point was that the highest officers in the government and the military DID came up with this plan. The fact that this one was refused doesn't account for those *that weren't* and the only reason we were made aware of "Operation Northwoods" existence was because "someone" disobeyed the order of getting rid of all traces of the documents proving it's existence. That's when comes one critical question that should pop up in everyone's mind : what of the other Operations that were ever drafted in the same way that DID get passed without anyone knowing about it ? Remember Project MK Ultra ? Or the HEart Attack Gun ? Or A.N.T.S. ? Or Operation Echelon ? And please tell me, what has happened to Edward Snowden or Julian Assange ? And what of the dozens, maybe even hundreds of other journalists and other whistleblowers whose names never made it into the annals of history _precisely_ because, uncontrary to Snowden, the government got to them ?
@Mackenzie Bauroth Wonderful, an Ad Hominem. Let me guess, you're the kind of people thinking "Let's discredit everyone whose line of thinking i'm raised to think is nuts the moment i'm confronted with facts making me uncomfortable about my positions." Grow up. Julien Assange DO exist, so does Snowden, so does every single "projects" and "operations" whose names i mentionned. Why is it that when RECORDED AND DOCUMENTED FACTS are presented to people, they immediatly go full denial instead of arguing logically ? Because so far, the only thing i'm getting from you is _"Look, i can't argue with the facts. So i'll simply call you a conspiracy nut and call it a day."_ I just really can't wrap my mind about people like you. You KNOW that the government has an undeniable track record of doing absudly evil stuff and, when exposed by people whose job consist of doing just that (cue Julien Assange as an investigative journalist), doesn't hesitate to treat them worse than criminal - violating human rights, ignoring due process, commit to torture (physical AND psychological) and put him to trial for crimes he didn't commit. Why ? For committing the cardinal sin of exposing REAL governments for being the very criminals you make the FICTIONNAL Avengers to be. How low can you sunk into denial to reach that level of conceit ?
@@Astro2024 libertarianism is the opposite of authoritarian, that is true. But, libertarianism is a whole other thing on the political spectrum. Furthermore, how you wrote that sentence make it seem that the right is authoritarian. If you honestly think that way, then I must inform you that is very wrong. There's both people on the Left and Right who are libertarians or authoritarians. Please remember that important tidbit of political information. And sorry for making this post this long and thank you for reading everything.
Stark had an overwhelming sense of guilt for what happened to that student affecting his decision(s). Yes the Avengers needed an oversight because the general public was scared and angry at them. Tony said that "they could correct the course and make many changes after the people learned to trust the Avengers again, but the Accords were the best compromise at that time". Both sides (Cap/Stark) had very valid points and in all honestly there was no single one size fits all answer. Stark and the others thought the Accords might actually be loosened up later on or even done away with, but it was the best option to show that the Avengers were NOT unlawful terrorists as the media was portraying them. The accords were simpley damage control for the Avengers from a hostile press, public opinion.
@DirtRoadTraveler The VR device had given Stark a migraine/tension head ache. She verbally berated Stark simply because it was a convenient opportunity. Plus that nightmare of all of the Avengers dead didn't help. I was surprised though I was thinking that Stark would LOATHE the oversight committee and Capt would be in favor since it'd be military like.
The Avengers should have just attached cameras to themselves like what happened in The Incredibles 2. The Avengers just need everyone to hear their story. Civilians see destruction and blame the heroes but they don't realize how much help the Avengers are
You do know that, when the Avengers evacuated the people in Sokovia, they tried to save all the people, right? And quite frankly, the whole thing happened because of Stark's fault. Captain, he is the man who lived through 2 wars, and he knew exactly what Tyrants are. Stark? I don't think so, he's too selfish!
Civil War only happens because everyone is a moron in both the MCU and the comics. And dear god is it worse in the comics. Sometime's I wish I could the MCU Avengers Linkara's top 15 things wrong with Civil War video. Speciffically the ending speech about how all the accors/regestration act are completely freaking pointless and serve to do nothing but turn heros into villians.
Neither Captain America or Iron Man were in a good mental state, which is another factor as to why they fought. Steve lost Peggy and Tony found out that Steve is protecting the man who killed his parents.
I don’t agree, cap isn’t in the wrong. You say the reason why they fight is because they didn’t talk... well that is wrong, cap tried pacifying him and reassuring him that Bucky is innocent, Iron man was the one who wasn’t mentally strong here, not cap... and for good reason... he just seen footage of hydra killing his parents. Cap is protecting someone innocent, hydra took advantage of someone’s body. How about instead of killing hydras slave and doing absolutely nothing about hydras operations... just go and takeout hydra so this scenario doesn’t repeat itself.
I think Iron Man wasn't properly represented in this video. His point was not that politicians were better or less morally corrupt than the avengers, but rather that there would be greater accountability and less resistance. Even in real life, there is a great difference in perception of soldiers and mafias.
The problem is that these are super human beings, in real life at least in the US the idea was that even if the government went rouge youd have weapons to defend yourself and the freedom to assemble. If the skovia accords had happened imagine this, infinity war thanos' soldiers are destroying cities and the UN commands the heroes to save people instead of going after the stone and stragre. Then ripperonis
Thing is, the video speaks about 'thinking about what if the government did have the control' but it never covers the opposite end of the spectrum. That is to say, Cap's angle. Saying that the safest hands are still our own is not only highly arrogant (assuming no one can do a better job) and highly patronizing (I'm better than everyone else, therefore I should be the one to decide)... but it's also HIGHLY dangerous and easily abused and misused. Cap's reasoning is a vigilante's reasoning. 'I'm right.' + 'The government can't/won't do right.' = "Anything I do is excusable." It's a very self-righteous stand-point that mirrors tyranny and has, as history shows us, caused ALOT of grief. AT that point, literally anything becomes morally gray and excusable because 'the safest hands are still our own." And that's putting aside the blatant idea that those hands may actually NOT be the safest.... see the creation of Ultron. That may have been Tony's fuck up, but it's equally unreasonable to think that 'Cap will never fuck up' as it is to think 'the government will never fuck up.' Just like Spiderman says "You're wrong. Think You're right. That's dangerous."
@@Krescentwolf Well the thing is we actually do see it happen throughout the movies following civil war what happens. Say everybody does end up registering for the program. Thanos sends his goons in infinity war and the Gov has no idea of the stone so it gets stolen and they are ordered to stay on earth instead of following the stone. Thats it movie ends right there. The problem with government agencies is how slow they act and its different when talking about earthly crimes but when you are dealing with aliens its a whole different ball game. Yes the superheroes whether the people like it or not will have the better judgement of their powers and abilities and how to use or not use them. What if another The US declares another war against another country, the heroes would be forced to fight for a cause they may or may not agree with which is inflicting their personal rights. If you want to sign up go for it but you shoulndt be forced. Stark didnttrust himself because at heart he's was weak individual looking for acceptance.
@@Krescentwolf Exactly! I was just going to point out that the presenter assumes the same about Cap and individual Avengers as Tony assumes about government. If individuals in an organization (i.e. government) can go bad and use the Avengers improperly, then can't individual Avengers ALSO go bad and use Avengers powers improperly? This is just the individualism vs. collectivism argument dressed up in a spangly outfit.
Stark was wrong in any case, a simple example in Civil War shows that - it would be unfair to Bucky to follow the government. Cap would be outcast anyway, because everyone blamed Bucky and no one was after the real villain. They willingly closed their eyes on justice the moment they singed.
I don’t think Tony is totally wrong. He just doesn’t trust that THE PEOPLE or themselves will make the best choice with best outcome. After all, they are all humans and no human is perfect. This also apply to Steve Rogers.
Governments aren't perfect either, which is why it would be most likely disastrous if U.N. controlled the Avengers since the U.N is comprised of powerful people who can get away with a lot more if they convince the public and are also not perfect like you mentioned about people in general.
@Alex Meggoe yeah, lets just forget about the child trafficking. They sure were held accountable for that. That's why everybody knows about, and people went to prison for it. /sarcasm/ If they can not be trusted not to sell children, they can not be trusted.
Humans have innate rights given by either God or nature. The governments role should be to protect these rights and act as referee when these rights conflict. Those who feel that government provides rather than protects rights is in danger of abusing this power just as easily as those who offer protection as a reason to take rights away. If you take the choice away from the individual then you also take away the ability to bring individual bad actors to justice or discipline those who make honest mistakes. Attempting to punish any group for the evils of one of their members is evil itself and their are some who will purposefully use this to hide. Treating people as individuals first and members of a group second is the only way uphold justice and allow mistakes to be atoned and learned from. Treating people as a group first and individuals second is a way to ensure group consistency and promotion but also to hide from responsibility.
Yes it does, you just are being contrarian. Humans having rights by interacting with each other, exist naturally, without the need for government. Its only when we violate another persons right that we need a third party advocate. Rights promote equality. That's why you don't want the government empowered with removing rights.
I can understand why Tony made that decision, he felt like he was (and frankly was) responsible for so much accidental death and destruction, he lost all faith in his own decision making, assumed that he needed to be controlled by a "higher and wiser power" to avoid that from happening again. The problem is that he proyected this insecurity into the entire group, when he's the one who's been consistently messing up with increasingly worse consequences for everyone.
Yeah, and protecting a super human Nazi over the United Nations , stealing cars, and use government property like Caps did sounds completely logical. Cap was acting on his guts and feelings to even more so than Tony, Tony knew the accords where BS but if they didn't sign they were criminals and you cannot change the accords and the terms unless you sign. Cap was being a child the entire film, he seemed to care more about Bucky than the entire world's safety.
@@TheOUTSIDER1995Tony ambushed the others along with Ross to force them to sign the accords or retire or go to prison for an indefinite period of time with no due process. Steve tried to save his innocent friend from a kill order which would have him shot on sight even though he's completely innocent. Tony tried to TRICK Steve into signing the accords even with their massive problems by saying he'd fix it later which is not how anything works. TONY created Ultron and nobody brings up how that is all HIS fault and the movie tries to say it's the whole teams fault when it's just Tony and Bruce. The accords are also counterproductive AND pointless since it does none of the stuff that it's supposed to. Tony is 100% wrong.
@@anirudh_bhat not sure how I'm wrong since most of those guys wouldn't exist if Tony weren't a massive dick before or after iron man 1 but whatever. Now tell me which part of the accords actually does anything but make it harder to be a hero? None of the policies the accords pushes are good ideas and it goes without saying when you're trying to create a system like the accords u involve the people ur trying to regulate. But that's only something u do when it's actually about fixing problems and not just gaining control which is all the accords exist for.
Superpowers aren't real, but what about super-smart or super-talented. If someone has the ability to solve a major problem for a country, build a trillion dollar business, or create a civilization changing power source, does that mean we should have governments of far less intelligent and talented people dictate how that gifted person gets to apply or not apply their talents in their life? This goes against everything that a free society guarantees. Does someone who wins popularity contests get to use state guns to take control and wield that ability or creation belonging to someone else according to their personal reasoning or for their own advancement? In a free society, we can only take people's freedoms and choices away when they break laws established for the common good. It's therefore important that we don't allow politics to redefine what is the common good, and it's therefore critical laws crafted afford people the opportunity to choose compliance. If you craft laws that do not make the allowance for choice, in that the very nature of the law makes people guilty by default by simply being who they are and never having room to make a choice, then this is persecution. Persecution with the intention of removing an obstacle is elimination. And persecution with the intention of then exploiting that person's ability at some point in the future is enslavement. It is the use of the political vehicle as a path to domination and tyranny as opposed to the use of conquest. The threat of force as opposed to the execution of force on a large scale to accomplish the same outcome. The valuable difference to the tyrannical mind is that the political way leaves most people alive to be used as a resource in the future, the conquest vehicle does not. The political way allows the tyrant to have their cake and eat it too.
@@zakariafadli4996 In that case, you should probably read the rest of the comment, as that original sentence grounds the questions he layers asks more in reality.
Ike Okereke Reverse engineer the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2nd Generation processor from intel and send me the diagrams of the logic processing circuitry and I will accept your world view that people do not vary in intelligence.
@@tanimation7289 I recall reading a comic where an analogy was drawn between Superhuman Registration and gun control. I think it was pre-Civil War, though
Muhammad Aayan Ali Tony’s like a lot of politician types. They like to hold others to account for their own mistakes. But, no, Tony’s mentality was exactly that government should control the Avengers. Otherwise, why support a scheme that would do just that? If he wanted a scheme of accountability for bad behavior, then he should have sat down with Steve and come up with one that retained individual judgement, but added accountability with due process. He didn’t do that. Instead, he ran to the politicians to cede them control. Now, how he’d control extra-planar beings like Thor, or hyper-powered crotchety beings like the Hulk, well, that’s a different question.
After watching this video i can not but feel like you missed a valuable variable in this whole debate: What actually happens if they say no to the accords. Yes, i agree and i believe that everyone with common sense would agree that it would be best for the government, as it is now, to not have such a force in their grasp BUT flipping the middle finger on them ain't exactly a smart decision considering the military might they have. Avengers are funded by Tony, The Stark industries, and they can not keep being funded if they flip of the countries they visit or are located in. Worst case scenario - The countries turn on the Avengers. And it would be justified, considering what Tony did in Avengers 2. HE almost got life of the planet removed and no matter how you look at it - Tony IS the Avengers. With out Tony, the avengers would become criminals, criminals that may do more good than bad, but they would still need to steal to survive and have the gear to do any good. Can't exactly have a stable job while the government is after your ass. In short - I agree with most of what you said but it is more like you took the initial argument at face value with out considering all of the problems and variables. P.S. Tony said that once the accords were signed, appeals for some change would be possible and probably mandatory. He knows working for them will lead to problems but it is still the best solution ESPECIALLY for him (you know, cause of money and all).
Steve is definitely right, but Tony has a valid point to be considered. There needs to be some kind of oversight in the Avengers that prevents them from acting recklessly that doesn't take the form of complete government control.
We tried to nuke the whole island of Manhatten... That's why we should have the right to dictate what the band superhumans are allowed to do or not do.
The correct answer is that neither of them were right because both of them took their ideal too far. In the case of Iron Man, he naively assumed that the power he was willing to surrender over the Avengers could be renegotiated at a later date. This is totally asinine as he utterly fails to realize that once a government gets power, it NEVER surrenders it willingly. Tony fails to realize pretty much everything the video talks about: that government is corrupt, the United Nations is completely worthless and private initiative is essential for the success of society. However, Captain America also makes two large mistakes which I feel the video overlooks. The first is that he flatly rejects all oversight in any form. He completely ignores two fundamental truths about both Freedom and Justice: Man must be governed; and Power corrupts. To the first, Cap forgets that He has no authority to do what he is doing--essentially he is acting as a rogue governing body; doing what he believes is best in any given situation and the "governed" are expected to be grateful. This is ironic because Captain America is supposed to represent America whose founding principle is that government derives its powers from the CONSENT of the governed. By application, if any particular nation doesn't want the Avengers around, the team is obligated to respect that. As for the second point, Steve forgets that freedom only works if power is restricted. His admission of fallibility means that someone--perhaps someone with a more objective viewpoint--should be double-checking his work. This is another example of "unicorn government." Captain America's best intentions cannot account for the deaths caused by his unilateral decisions: deaths which might have been avoided had more people be involved. The second mistake Captain America makes is when he actually showcases Tony to be right, in a way, at the end of the movie. The Winter Soldier ABSOLUTELY deserves to be incarcerated for what he's done. There is no question about the law here and the law exists for the protection of the people. Yet, Captain America defies all law, openly abuses his freedom and endangers who-knows-how-many people by fighting to defend Bucky and maintain his freedom. It is just that cavalier attitude--the arrogance of "might makes right"--that makes the Sokovia Accords look inviting. The truth is that there should have been a balance. As the video states, the Avengers need to be subject to the law--but as individuals; not as an entity of the United Nations. The Avengers in that case would be kind of a mercenary group, of sorts: a professional and highly powerful team that can be called upon for select missions but who also act on their own within certain parameters. They are not under the control of a governing body; they are their own corporation and can seek self-interest so long as they respect the laws and customs of the nations they operate within. Instead, both Captain America and Iron Man allowed their blindness, emotion, arrogance and self-righteousness set them on a path to conflict. This, more than anything, is the real lesson of Captain America: Civil War. Civil wars always start when both sides see only where they are right and remain blind to where they are wrong.
I disagree that Captain America made any mistakes. First off, he knew that oversight, in any form, would leave the Avengers completely ineffective at doing their jobs and he was proven right by Infinity War. Because of the accords, neither he nor any of the rogue Avengers were around to prevent the children of Thanos from taking Iron Man, Dr. Strange, and Spider-Man off of the earth. He also knew that restricting their power left them totally unprepared for Thanos himself which is why they failed to stop him from getting the final infinity stone and killing half of the universe. Second, Cap knew that Bucky didn't set off the bomb at the UN embassy even before Tony found evidence that supports Cap's theory. Even when Tony tried to present this evidence, Secretary Ross ignored it and threatened to have Tony locked up which just shows that not even the government can be trusted. Even if Cap agreed to let Bucky be incarcerated for the other crimes he did do, the courts will declare him not guilty by mental disease or defect. Cap wasn't blind, emotional, arrogant, or self-righteous in any way but I will say that his attachment to Bucky did escalate the conflict between him and Iron Man.
"Oversight in any form." Government is oversight and Men--even good Men--must be governed. The entire premise of the United States is based upon the BALANCE of power. A team of super-powered beings have no balance which means that, as Tony said in the movie: "If we can't accepted limitations, we're no better than the bad guys." "Because of the accords, neither he nor any of the rogue Avengers were around" I haven't seen Infinity War yet but you are arguing from a point of practical effect rather than moral principle. The problem with such an argument is twofold. First, it's basically just conjecture because every decision is subject to the Butterfly Effect. If the Avengers had stayed together under Cap's vision for the team, then Thanos would have approached the situation differently. OR it is conceivable that they would have been torn apart by other factors or would have become the very thing Tony predicted--the bad guys. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The second problem with this argument is that the same can be said of Captain America. You assert that the Sokovia Accords caused the Avengers to fracture and they were not able to defend the planet as they could have otherwise. But the argument to that is that if Cap and his team had submitted to the Sokovia Accords, then the team wouldn't have been fractured and we are back to square one: both Iron Man and Captain America were wrong because they placed their own convictions above the good of the team. "Second, Cap knew that Bucky didn't set off the bomb at the UN embassy..." First, this is simply not true. Cap didn't KNOW that Bucky was innocent. He suspected that Bucky was innocent but even in the movie he was prepared to bring Bucky in if he had been responsible. In real life, there is no way one could "know" such a thing. Cap was right to stand up for the rights of his friend--a speedy and public trial--and the government and Black Panther were wrong to seek Bucky's death without trial first. But that is actually why the government and Black Panther (both well-meaning in this situation) need to have accountability. The same thing that Captain America rejected for himself. And that brings me to the next problem with this statement: pretty much ALL superheroes are tyrants. They do what they do because they can and no one can stop them. That they are benevolent tyrants is irrelevant. Government--that body whose purpose is to defend the innocent and destroy the wicked-- "derives its just powers from the consent of the governed." Well...who "consented" to having Captain America show up and bash people into unconsciousness with a magical shield? Who consented to Black Panther violating a nation's borders to assassinate a political dissident from his home country? Who consented to Iron Man flying around the world blowing up equipment and endangering civilians in active war zones? These people--on both sides--have ZERO authority to do what they do. Yes, we all like superhero movies but like any fictional experience, we suspend disbelief in order to enjoy it. The reality is that if super-powered beings actually existed, we would ABSOLUTELY need to have a means of restricting their power. And Captain America's abject lawlessness actually demonstrates why. How much damage did his behavior cause? How many people were hurt just in the chase scene in Germany? How many people COULD have been hurt? As I said before: Men must be governed. Good men require less government than others--hence why Tony just giving over complete control of the Avengers to the UN was really stupid--but even good men can be corrupted. Accepting accountability is the mark of a mature individual who understands that even his greatest intentions can meet with disastrous ends. And Cap should know this because of his experience in Captain America: The Winter Soldier. SHIELD had no oversight and, as a result, HYDRA was able to infiltrate them and turn their good intentions into a catastrophe. There's an old proverb which states "In a multitude of counselors there is safety." Even the most well-meaning, best-intentioned people can make mistakes. Oversight and accountability simply means more people are looking at the problem and can see it from a different perspective than a select few. "...which just shows that not even the government can be trusted..." I would never disagree with such a sentiment. That was why Tony was wrong. One of the most cringe-worthy statement he makes in the movie is when he tells Cap that the accords "can be amended" and that they just need to sign it "as is" right now to get trust back. Like...what da freaking heck is that naivete? When has government EVER willingly given up power? The idea that the Avengers would just sign away ALL of their rights to an international body of bureaucrats is completely asinine. "Even if Cap agreed to let Bucky be incarcerated for the other crimes he did do, the courts will declare him not guilty by mental disease or defect." This actually completely countermands your argument. If the courts would have let Bucky go anyway, then everything Cap did was pointless. Because Bucky would have been safer in the hands of government agents. "Cap wasn't blind, emotional, arrogant, or self-righteous in any way..." The only difference between superheroes and super villains is who they work for. In the case of superheroes, they work to serve the people; to keep people safe and to uphold the ideals of Truth, Justice and Liberty. In the case of super villains, they work to serve themselves, their own goals or some tyrannical notion of order and control. In Captain America: Civil War, BOTH Iron Man and Captain America are super villains. That's the brilliance of the movie. Iron Man was not motivated by the people but by his own personal guilt. Captain America was not motivated by some sense of justice but by his friendship to Bucky. Had that woman not confronted Tony or had the government been after a different target than Steve's personal friend, neither one of them would have done what they did. Approaching the situation logically and reasonably, both Tony and Steve should have sat down and discussed how the Avengers could do better. This would have led both of them to conclude the following: 1) The Avengers need some oversight. Not complete control handed over to someone else but they do need some peer reviews. 2) The United Nations is NOT going to be the one to do that. Instead, the Avengers will partner with individual nations to garner their support and set the boundaries for the Avengers' power and authority. 3) The Avengers themselves need a governing document: a Constitution which outlines their responsibilities, their powers and their relationships to one another. We both already agree on everything Iron Man did wrong so I won't waste time reviewing that but with Captain America, he was blinded by his own loyalty to Bucky (which you admit) and his arrogant self-righteousness. Captain America rejected the same oversight that he proposed himself to be because he believed he didn't need that oversight. That is the very definition of arrogance and self-righteousness. Captain America placed himself in a position in which he sought his own goals and was willing to defy the principles of Truth (he lied to Tony about Bucky) Justice (he defied law-enforcement and the just powers of the rule of law) and Liberty (he placed unknown numbers of people in danger by his behavior) in order to accomplish those goals.
John Babylon I think at the end of it they were both right and both wrong. The avengers need someone to be accountable to for whatever wrong the commit. But they need to be able to choose and honestly it should be via their own democratic system where each avenger votes whether or not to pursue an angle
Exactly. Both had good points; both I think wanted to do what was right but--blinded by their own arrogance--pursued what eventually destroyed the team. Power is, after all, a matter of balance. They shouldn't be completely free to do whatever they want nor should they be treated like unthinking resources to be called upon only when some bureaucrat thinks it necessary.
The guy who didn't want the government to use his suit in Iron Man 2 wants the government to run him and his entire team in Civil War. How things change.
I understand all of your points, because in a realistic world, corrupt UN officials and scummy politicians are gonna exist. However, the Avengers can't just stand their ground and say, "Nah, we're not going to listen to an organization made up of hundreds of huge countries." I agree with most of Cap's views, but it's dangerously arrogant to say that they can just refuse to listen to any world governments and plan everything themselves. That's not how it works. One issue I have with what Cap says about "being sent where we don't feel we should go" is that surely a the committee can't completely dictate that kind of thing. The way Cap and, well, the entire movie, present the accords is ridiculously straight forward. A thick document can't be that simple. So surely there will be some sort of safe guards, some sort of cooperation between the Avengers deciding on where to go. I don't think it's as black and white as the movie made it seem with the information they gave us, because it has to be simplified for the sake of the movie. But if this were to happen in our world, I don't think it would be as simple as "some committee tells you guys where to go and dictates everything you do without the actual group's say." I'd also think that the accords could be changed and modified within reason. A document that long probably has lots of room for improvement.
Sabrina Crowe what you just described only exists in the HISHE version of Civil War because both in real life and the Marvel movies/comics Captain America is right because of the reasons shown in this video.
The problem was that no one tried to compromise, and too many things got in the way before they could have a proper discussion about it. They had like a five minute conversation, but a genuine discussion of something of this level would take time. But I would argue the Avengers CAN do that, because there is no nation that can take them down. Tony proved he could basically do anything he wanted by Iron Man 2, getting away with hacking the TV Justin Hammer was using, standing his ground with the government, and a bunch of other shit. He is the most obvious threat to any nation that dares to oppose them. Thor and Hulk just physically could do it. Captain America, Black Widow, and Hawkeye are a bit more difficult, but they are certainly threats, given Captain America alone is... fucking terrifying. Black Widow is the best spy, and Hawkeye... Well, Im sure he could do something. Its actually really well displayed how the governments are ineffective against anything beyond normal human level. The Winter Soldier... Well, yeah. But the point is, no one can control the Avengers through force, and governments tend to fear and hate uncontrollable elements, benevolent or not. So they tried controlling them through politics.
Police officers are responsible for protecting our laws. That doesn't mean that they have to get registered or that they must wait for green light to act when they see a crime in progress. They are allowed to act independent within the set rules. That's all Cap want. He doesn't want the Avengers to be above the law, but he wants the right to be able to go in and do something without having to fear to get put in prison without so much as a trial for it. And if the question is who should make the decision, Cap, who is actually there, or some committee in the background, the answer is clearly Cup. The last body I would trust a decision like this is the UN, which, as a reminder, is not a grouping of nice and democratic countries, but has a lot of dictatorships in it.
@@swanpride no that is wayyyy different. Are you serious, a cop messed up once and actendtely kills one person and the media and riots have him by the head. Police officers are treated like shit. Police officers have a ton of regulations they have to maintain. Captain America is nothing like that. To be honest the accords would make him more like a police officer. He would have to do what others tell him even if he doesnt want to, and must think about the safety of others before catching the bad guy To be honest I would rather have a police officer with a good heart protecting me rather than captain America who seems to care less and less about others and more about himself..
The accords wanted people to "register" and when they were implemented they resulted in the government being comfortable with killing Bucky and putting the Avengers into prison without ANY due process. The Accords should not just be about controlling the Avengers, they also should be about securing their rights, and they weren't. If they had been just a rule-book, Cap would have agreed to them, but they weren't that, they were about turning the Avengers into weapons for the government to wield.
But that’s the overall mindset: Let the government (or some government) take care of it and everything will be fine. But that’s not true. As to your question: I personally believe no one should control everything. Especially no individuals.
@@Hawaiian_Pizza_Enjoyer The government isn't an individual.... The Avengers are the avatar for 'the individual' in this scenario, and you don't seem to be holding to that as well as you claim to be So humans aren't good enough to control things, so just let everything stay out of control.? If humans aren't good enough to responsibly control things why are you taking the side that they should be unfettered XDD Any modern government is precisely NOT just an individual, it's many people coming together to make the most reasonable decisions they can make, in theory led to those decisions by the people they govern. Soooo do you wanna try to make a logically consistent rebuttal orrrr.... Just kinda be another 'merican who can't seem to decide if they love our country and its governance or not..? "But that’s the overall mindset: Let the government (or some government) take care of it and everything will be fine. " Dude.... No, it's not. You're overstating it so much you've just completely rephrased it. Allow me to make this more direct for you, so you can stop talking to me about things nobody is saying. We both seem to agree that humans in general aren't perfect. My conclusion is thus that we should bring together large groups of people to try and figure some ish out. You.... Seem to be claiming that individuals are even more imperfect than groups and yet simultaneously that groups of people are.... More...? likely to make bad decisions.? With that in mind, feel free to take another stab at it
It's oversight not control, government is just overseeing or supervising them in damage control. Shoot it isn't even the U.S. Government that's going to supervise them, it's the U.N. why else would they have like 177 countries sign the accords?
slipknot95maggot I don’t really see a need for that condescending tone, but maybe you’ve had a crappy day. Though, I hope not. So, back on topic. I think I phrased my argument poorly, since it seems like there’s been an misunderstanding. I don’t see the government as an individual. I meant that the government shouldn’t control everything *especially* not individuals. With the avengers being the individuals. The way I see it, modern governments aren’t as democratic as they claim to be. The people with power and money are the real decision makers. The avengers, if under governmental control, would be nothing but a special police force. Following orders and maybe ,at some point , even sitting on somebody’s payroll. I agree, everybody makes mistakes because every human is flawed by nature. But I don’t believe that governmental control would change anything about that, because people on the top don’t really care about people. People should help and care for each other more directly, without someone ordering to do so because it’s their job. And an independent group of heroes is a great symbol for that. That’s my point of view at least
My opinion of this situation Is the same as FEE and in the immortal word of Benjamin Parker: With great power comes great responsibility" I could never trust a political system with Authority over Avengers. But I do agree that there should be some kind of oversite of the Avengers, not sure what that would be though. Great Video 👍
Lastly they can all still be sued, and tried by courts. They don't have immunity. They do a crime they get time, like half of the heroes in the civil war movie did.
I want to back up xertris; just use existing laws to deal with these problems. Stepping up to deal with things via *existing* government agencies is also another solution. No, I don't mean SHIELD. This is another chance to ground the fantastic with a bit of realism, to aid suspension of disbelief. There's nothing the military, let alone the police, can do about Thanos... but even without adding "supers" of their own, even without resorting to ultra-tech or magic or whatever, a properly trained and implemented military or police group should be able to *affect* most supers. I don't just mean with brute force, either. They should be able to _think_ their way around some problems, like luring the Hulk away from densely populated areas. If protecting oneself with firearms wasn't such a controversial topic, that'd be another great solution. "Oh, you're a supervillain who wanted to start robbing people out here in flyover country? You may be tough, but are you 'buckshot to my eyes don't matter' tough?" Yeah, some supervillains *are* this tough, but the idea is that the superheroes really aren't needed *until* that point. ;)
*The overseers of the Avengers are the other superheroes and superhero groups who'll kick their asses if they go rogue.* The other superheroes are bad overseers because they good friends with each other so it difficult to judge each other from an unbiased perspective. The only other superhero group are the Defenders and the Runaways in the MCU. Neither of them can touch the Avengers.
I’ve always agreed with Cap; super heroes shouldn’t be limited by the government, because one corrupt official can turn it from an innocent intention to a disaster that will cost the lives of the innocent and possibly even the freedoms of the people who try to fix it. Yes, there should be a way to punish the ones who go evil, but at the same time that can be accomplished by the heroes that are still heroes and by facilities like The Raft. They already have a process for super villains, so why not use it for heroes who turn evil (with maybe a few tweaks)
Its not about those who go evil. You are referring to villains. Super Villains shouldnt be allowed to have powers to begin with. The dilemma is deciding whether or not to make actual heroes have restrictions to prevent accidents when Heroes are fighting Villains. Think of it this way, say there's bullies at your childs school. one kid decides to come to school with a bb gun, and the school somehow allows it because he stops bullies with this gun, he's "BB Man" 😂 so BB Man shoots bullies with a BB gun and stops their bullying. But in the process, every single time he shoots a bully in the leg, he stops the bully but he also put another kids eye out. You dont think there should be atleast some restrictions on BB Man? I mean, before your child gets home without one of his eyes
@@thealterego3187 No but the problem is that this isn't the Wild West anymore. Rules are there for a reason and your always going to have people who believes that rules are for thee not me.
@@Phoenix-yc4ry ENDGAME SPOILER: at the end of endgame though he’s rlly old so he’ll just die soon and won’t be able to fight with the avengers anymore. He chose to live out his life with Peggy and gave up fighting
In Civil War, Tony Stark's motivation was to relieve himself of responsibility, and thereby forgive his guilt. I did not see his support for the Accords as an analysis of their worth, it was just a way to say, "Not my fault."
Stark from the beginning has had a character arc about takeing responsibility, in civil war he saw that they had screwd up and it cost lives . He wants to do better and to cut off worse laws from being past. It has nothing to do with relief of responsibility
@@cringekiller348 Cap was running away because someone was blinded through hatred and tried killing Bucky even though Bucky was brainwashed and had no control.
He was trying to prevent them from being killed, that's the reason why he asked Ross to let him bring them in instead of sending people that wouldn't hesitate to use lethal force. And he didn't know about the raft.
Cap: "He's my friend." Stark: "So was I." Oh really, Stark? Tell me, if Bucky was trying to hunt you down and kill you, don't you think Steve would be fighting Bucky in order to protect you? Stark is an asshole, in the comics, movies, cartoons, whatever he's in. He's always an asshole.
@@enchantedcat1192 i dont think its necessarily delusional. You cant say that Tony isnt unfair or spoiled sometimes, for example when he found out Bucky under mind control killed his parents. Sure, it is not something to take lightly and get over quickly, but saying 'I dont care, he killed my mom' and try to kill bucky as if it was totally his fault, makes him really unfair at times. Not that he is unjustified to be mad about it, but he knew he was controlled.
@Megan Todd and it was visions fault a creation of Tony's aka Tony's felt which everything in the whole god damn series is tony fucks up everything then tells everyone else they need to be held accountable
The thing is that government subsidies tend to artificially inflate prices. One thing to keep in mind is that a universal health care system is VERY taxing and allow either direct government of medicine (even more-so than it is with the FDA) and/or ridiculously high expenses. Don't believe me on that last part? Just look at the rate at which college is getting more expensive and how that figure eclipses inflation, causing the government to raise the amount of federal student aid just so they can keep the college population growing (something that isn't necessarily a good thing either). Put simply, the only forms of government support that I endorse are UBIs (only after trial, however) and universal tax credits.
I do not agree with all your points but I am so glad we agree on the bigger points. Superheroes should be regulated as individuals NOT weapons. This prevents corruption from being a problem, puts them in check, and allows them to act with the maximum benefit they are able to provide and best of all puts an important barrier between civilians and the politically powerful.
Your point is why I was team Cap in the comics (Superhuman Registration Act, 50 State Initiative, arrest by "Cape Killers" and former villain hit squads, detention without trial in the negative zone), but team Tony in the movie. In the comics, it grew from a Mutant registration law. While Tony's reasoning was technically sound, things were just too broad and the laws literally treated people as living weapons. The MCU has a much smaller superhero community and fewer actual teams. And the only oppressed community, the Inhumans, wasn't really focused on in the law. It mainly focused on the act of being a superhero more so than simply being a person with an ability. In context, I don't disagree that a paramilitary super unit founded by SHIELD shouldn't be running violent ops in foreign civilian sectors and then throwing a damn hissy fit when the government demands oversight. Steve was actively enlisted when he went into the ice, and promptly joined SHIELD when he woke up (in Winter Soldier we see he is clearly an agent in addition to being Avengers lead). Tony kept them funded and active after the Hydra coup, but they were basically operating in a grey area. Look at it this way- in the beginning kf Civil War, a team lead by Captain America manages to get a bunch of civilians killed on foreign soil at the hands of a war criminal who once worked with HYDRA and had once unleashed the Hulk on a civilian populace. This reflects poorly on both their team and the US, whom everyone assumes they represent. They really shouldnt be surprised that the US would push through something requiring the Secretary of State to look over their actions. Yes the last Secretary in charge of these things was a corrupt asshole, but that doesnt stop the world from turning. You fix the security leaks, you dont just say "do what you want, try not to make us not bad" to your special forces teams lol
Putting it another (shorter) way- "we can't trust the government and must be allowed to make costly mistakes without oversight because the safest hands are still our own" states United States Army Captain, former Agent of SHIELD, and field leader of SHIELD'S still active superhero combat unit. The balls on that guy lol
It’s interesting how either decision would’ve drastically split and change The Avengers for the future. But then Thanos comes out of nowhere and the decision is thrown out the window
Thor would probably just laugh and peace out. Hulk would be in his Banner form, and probably peace out too because he knows if he can't control the Hulk, the government certainly wouldn't be able to. As for Danvers, she's an air force brat, she'd sign up with a smile on her face and would probably be the first one to incite violence against Cap's side for being technically criminals.
Out of context I completely agree: governments are generally too corrupt to be trusted. But Tony doesn't make his decision out of context. Ultron, Sokovia.. too many mistakes were made. There have to be consequences for those mistakes. A good deed doesn't negate the consequences of bad deeds, even when those deeds were committed with the best of intentions.
Spiral Feather Then HE should suffer consequences because Ultron and Sokovia were directly Tony’s (and Bruce’s) fault. Individuals who go rogue should be held accountable, not everyone around them just because others continuously make mistakes. Tony, from his first movie, has shied away from responsibility and accountability. Not completely, but enough. It took him being kidnapped, being held hostage for months, tortured, almost killed and watching a new friend die for him to finally realize his weapons were a problem... and as pointed out HE made the decision to shut it down. If it was up to the government, the UN, they would’ve wanted him to continue his weapons manufacturing. Tony agreed to the Accords because he didn’t want to deal with the guilt and responsibilities that came from all the lives lost in Sokovia, due to him and his need to “protect”. He fobbed it off to people with greater political prowess... which is EXACTLY what he always did with his company - fobbed it off to Pepper while he went off to play and tinker. This is not a new habit, it’s just larger in scale. And as shown in the previous movies he gets frustrated when Steve doesn’t fall in line with his way of thinking and picks a fight. Again, Civil War is just larger in scale. Tony is incredibly brilliant, there’s no doubt. But to take a quote from Jurassic Park, “your scientists were too busy thinking about whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should”. I think this quote applies to Tony quite a bit. He’s too focused on the hypotheticals, his intellect and his capabilities to recognise that he goes too far sometimes. And as the proverbial “scientist” it’s not his job to clean up after himself, but the people higher up that he works for: Jurassic Park scientists worked for Hammond, and Tony would prefer to work under the UN because it allows him a safety net.
I find it hilarious that Tony is so willing to ignore any context and goes right for bloody vengeance, where if it was him, being brain washed and controlled to do awful acts against his will, 3 movies wouldn't be able to cover his self pitying and righteous indignation. "I don't care. He killed my mom" and Ultron, who he created of his own free will, killed how many people?
Sophia V I mean he didn’t create Ultron and also I feel like that’s a perfectly normal reaction. You spend most your life thinking that your fathers drunk driving killed your mother, only to find out they were killed and that the killer is in the room. I’m pretty sure all my reason and rhyme would go out the window in that situation also he didn’t even try to kill them
@@byakugan2173he literally blamed himself for Slovakia, that is literally why he chose the accords, not to mention under the circumstances, most people would throw their reasoning out of the window
Tbh, I thought tony saying that made sense. Because as human beings, we tend to get angry and frustrated when things are unfair. Say one of your best friend died because some guy sprayed his brain. You have a chance to kill him, would you? Its honestly a normal human reaction, because in the world people want balance. Everything has to do with balance. And I can see some flaws to doing a revenge thing, like how it won't change anything. But it does make you feel better. In some CASE.
I'm not saying the accords are a particularly good solution, but I think there is something important that people are missing. You point out that consolidating power is often dangerous, but the Avengers are already very consolidated. They're one of the most powerful forces on the planet, and when they are beholden to only themselves, that means their power is consolidated to about 6-10 people depending on which Avengers are currently active. The Avengers represent massive power controlled by a mere handful of people. Here is why we are OK with the Avengers: we know them. We've seen their movies, so we know that even though they make mistakes, they have our best interests at heart. We know they are good people. However, imagine if we didn't know them. We've got a playboy billionaire former weapon developer, two former members of the corrupt agency SHIELD, an actual green monster who is barely under control, a robot created by a Ultron, and a scary red witch lady who first appeared as a villain. From this perspective, the only trustworthy characters are Cap and Thor, and Thor isn't even around most of the time. The UN doesn't have a good track record, but neither does the Avengers, honestly. They saved New York, which was good, but doesn't actually say much about their character as even a villain would likely try to prevent the planet being conquered. They chased down some Hydra dudes, but it's not clear if the public even knows about that. Finally, one of their members made an evil robot and the ensuing chaos resulted in a massive and destructive battle between Hulk and Ironman in Hong Kong, as well as incredible destruction an fatalities in Sokovia, where an entire city was destroyed. While it wasn't intentional, that entire Ultron debacle was the Avengers' fault, and probably wouldn't have happened if they had oversight. I'm just saying, we know far more about the Avengers than the average citizen of the MCU. They have reason to be afraid.
Um, no, people do know who most of the Avengers are. Who in MCU doesn't know Tony Stark, Spiderman and Captain America and what their intentions are? They are generally seen as hero's. Do bad things happen? Sure, and all of that was addressed in the video. If the government that exists in MCU got wind of Ultron, they would have funded it and asked for an exclusive contract for it. "Wouldn't have happened" Government that played with a stone to harness its power and created Abomination, and wanted to nuke Manhattan. Are you serious? Stop riding that unicorn.
@@uni4rm I was almost going to continue this discussion with you, but then you lost me at the end with your uncalled-for disrespect. You're not worth the time a lengthy response requires. Ciao.
I wanted to punch him in his bionic teeth. Moron. By that reasoning, a rape victim who learns how to defend herself is escalating and at fault for any and all damage done when someone tries to brutalize or rape her again.
@@axelstenvall8631 No vision resembles one point of veiw one that some people would also have But its wrong cuz no enemy of avengers came to earth to challenge avengers power
Please, Vision only brought this up so he could have his beloved Wanda confined in the safe house with him, there’s always an ulterior motive, and it’s no secret that both Ultron and Vision, whom were created by the mind stone, fell in love with Wanda because of their connection through the mind stone. Even during the airport battle when he lasered Rhodey as revenge for harming Wanda, when he was confronted by Tony about it he claimed “I was distracted” and only began to reveal remorse AFTER he saw the consequences of his actions.
One thing I noticed is that at the beginning of the MCU, Cap and Tony would be on opposite sides. Tony used to be a self indulgent guy who would make weapons just to become wealthier and wealthier. He even states in Ironman 2 that he doesn't want the government to take his weapons and suits away, so he would against the accords. Cap on the other hand started as a representation of the American people and nation who were fighting in the war and worked with the American government so he would be with the accords. But the thing with the MCU is that they always make their characters adapt and evolve as time passes. Tony is supposed this selfish businessman who would disagree with the accords but once he realizes how dangerous he and his weapons are, he has a change of heart and decide to be a hero. When he realizes that his heroic actions are also reckless and dangerous, he experience the same feeling he had when he first saw his weapons being used in the incorrect way. From there his character becomes more complex but stays understandable and relatable and makes sense why he would sign the accords. Steve on the other hand, first works with S.H.I.E.L.D. But when he learns it is corrupted by H.Y.D.R.A. he realizes that governmental organization can also be corrupted, therefore understandably refuses to sign the accords. Plus his best friend, bucky barnes, was brainwashed by H.Y.D.R.A and is hunted down by the government. But Steve rogers turns his back on the government to help his friend and clean his name, which eventually puts against the accords. And when you think about it, both Tony and Steve have fought organizations that supports their ideas. Tony fought the ten rings, a group of terrorists who isn't control which ends up wrecking and killing people. Steve fought H.Y.D.R.A, a group of nazi who corrupted the government into causing chaos around the world. Plus, it creates this Logical vs Emotional balance for all the other avengers who each chooses a specific side not just based on their characters and personality but also their personal life experiences and traumatic memories, events, complex relationships with every other avenger, with Tony's side being the logical side and Steve's side being the emotional side.
4:00 Avengers 1. Gov’t tries to nuke NYC; Avengers put nuke inside space portal thing. Nuking the largest city in the US isn’t really doing much to reduce civilian casualties. That’s what, 10 million civilians dead in exchange for a few hundred aliens? 5:00 “A camel is a horse designed by a committee.”
Even though I love Iron Man WAY more than Cap, Cap does have the right idea here. The decision of their power usage should be on them, not the government.
Xandros999 Apparently this is the stand he took in the comics? But even further? I don’t really know, I’m not a comic person. Anyway, I think it fits pretty well in a way actually.
Stark was not in the right mind, he has always been a troubled person. His vision of the world is a good one but the problem is the way to execute it. There is most definitely a need for some regulation, however, Tony knows that he's going about it incorrectly. It's his personal faults that hold him back, we've seen him grapple with all these different issues and Superior Iron Man is probably his worst nightmare. Emotionally, hes broken, what he needs is redemption and I'm sure it's coming in Avengers 4.
I think the people in the comments that are disagreeing with you are missing one very important fact: the Avengers is a group that holds these superpowered people accountable. It is a group (that was formed by a non-superpowered government, of sorts) to take care of things that normal people couldn't. When superpowered people do wrong things, the Avengers come in and stop them. How exactly would this be different by making them answer to someone else, except that it would require more bureaucracy? At the end of the day, saying they have to answer to someone without powers will not stop them from doing what they want, because they have superpowers and you can't stop them. All the accords did was piss off half the good guys by calling them villains. It gained nothing over the heroes that chose to side with them...because they were already good guys! It is like saying our government has too much power, so we should make a government to oversee them... Where does it stop?!
But this scale you’re presenting is incredibly black/white. Despite their original intent, each avenger has a personal agenda that can change just as any super individual. The avengers are not some morally sound entity, they are people who can be (and have been) just as corrupt as the villains. That’s why it needs to be an unbiased third party- hence, not a ‘hero’ or ‘villain’- that decides who dies in each scenario.
Tony Stark is a textbook leftist. "I made some bad decisions and caused some problems, now everyone must be brought under heel and prevented from making my bad choices, even if they have shown a tendency to make good choices, historically."
@@xljoush With the exception of the last action in Iraq and Afghanistan, every war or major military action in US history started during a Democratic Presidency or was literally started by Democrats. The Left is the wing of Eugenics, Union corruption, and "safety net" programs that reward defeatism.
@@CasualNotice The right/ conservatives are the wing of slavery, KKK, denying woman rights, Jim Crow laws, you guys blocked desegregation of the military based on race, sex, and sexuality; opposed interracial marriage; opposed same-sex marriage; opposed contraceptives; supported child labor; opposed the National Park System; opposed seat belts and airbags in cars as well as higher fuel efficiency standards; opposed expanding the voting franchise to women, African Americans, Native Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, the poor, and 18-year-olds; opposed the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), etc.
Alan Grant has the best way to describe where Team Iron Man is coming from; "Some of the worst things imaginable have been done with the best intentions." Basically; "The Road to Hell is paved in good intentions . . ."
This is a rational vs logic problem because Iron-Man wants to unite everyone and with the Sokovia records is means they also have to side with the UN but they will have all the control and the Avengers can only take action when they’re given permission. Iron-Man supports this which is a logical decision but when he finds out that the death of his mother was due to the actions of the Winter Soldier it becomes more of a rational motive. Captain America wants to protect Bucky (the winter soldier) and doesn’t like to be restricted especially when he knows he can help. This is more of a rational decision but he also wants to stop 5 other winter soldiers that can go rogue at anytime which gives him a logical motive. It’s balanced so the answer is neither (but since its captain America’s film he probably wins and he does by breaking Iron-Mans Arc) it just depends who you show more sympathy for and who’s mindset you understand more. Personally I’m on Iron-Mans side purely because I can relate to him more
I think a major factor that has to be taken into account though is when Tony said "If we don't do this now, it's going to be done to us later. That's the fact. That won't be pretty." Tony doesn't just believe oversight is necessary, he believes it's inevitable, and if they don't cooperate now, the full military, political and influential power of the UN will be used to force the Avengers to bend the knee or go to prison. And there's no way the Avengers come out of that situation in one piece. The only way they could avoid capture or assassination would be not to hold back, ensuring the Avengers would be killing innocents who were just following orders. But if they were captured, they would lose all their rights and not only be prevented from aiding the world during crisis, but would be used. The powers would be researched and attempts would be made to replicate them. Not only would this result in likely torturous experiments for those involved, if it was to some degree successful, variations of the Avengers could be set loose. Imagine unstable super soldiers in Iron Man suits in service to the UN. Imagine people through experimentation accidentally creating unstable variations of the Hulk. Secretary Ross has literally already attempted this before he had all the power he does now. Imagine the world getting its hands on Vision's Mindstone. The prison used to hold the Avengers in CW is called the Raft. In the Netflix series, it is explained that the Raft holds people indefinitely and there is no visitation, or any public knowledge of what happens inside. New York showed the world the need for the Avengers. SHIELD tried to create an arsenal with the Tesseract. An empowered UN Special Forces would likely be attempted. And all of this is just the tip of the iceberg. Coming peacefully and maintaining a degree of control over the direction of the Avengers and also holding on to high public opinion could prevent the world from descending into chaos. Also, I think some people assume that Tony is overwhelmed by guilt and letting it rule his decisions, and also assume that Tony is really the only one capable of causing drastic impact on the world around him spontaneously, whereas the rest of the team react to external threats. It's worth keeping in mind that Steve Rogers, ripped apart the most powerful military institution on the planet and physically he's just a super soldier. The Avengers are incredibly volatile and can be the source for worldwide revolutionary change, potentially violent change. I'm actually team Cap, but I feel Tony's position can get oversimplified.
Thank you! People don't really consider the alternative from Tony's side: either they sign, or they retire (implying death, imprisonment, possible torture and Avengers-level threats running amok). Tony attempted to act as a mediator between the Avengers and the UN (yes, partially driven by guilt) due to being the one that, ironically, could see the bigger picture despite his own emotional problems. My opinion? Both had valid points, and both could've compromised had it not been for the UN.
Great video! This ilustrates how the Russos did a pretty good job on Civil War, as they showed how both sides had a point, but neither of them was absolutely right. On one hand, Captain America had a point that signing the accords would meant less freedom, as they would have to act on requests of political agendas. On the other hand, Iron Man also had a point that the Avengers needed to be held accountable, as they were producing too many casualties during their missions. I think Cap is more right, but no 100%: superheroes should not become government puppets, but they have to be hold responsible for their consequences
I agree with many points. Someone else on the comment also stated that controlling individuals without their consent is slavery. That is why, the Sokovia Accords could not be the better option for the Avengers. Let's hypotetically say that the Avengers wanted to disband for personal purposes. Their right to step out after signing up to the accords might have been disregarded. Therefore, it is clear that the accords only see the Avengers as weapons. It derails from the same argument they made for regulating the Avengers in the first place. If the intention was to put the Avengers in check, the accords did never have to have control over the Avengers. All they had to regulate was only how to oversee the Avengers so that they would not break the rules. The accords should not have made to take over the Avengers as an organization. That is why, it is slavery, and slavery is never a good intention.
I used to be firmly on Team Cap. I think Tony’s view is more, we need accountability. Which I understand. Question is, how can the Govt. be trusted to keep The Avengers accountable. I think Natasha was right, as in she saw the need for accountability on one hand, but let Cap and Bucky leave the airport when she had the chance, standing by her friends.
I think that the person with the *real* moral high ground is Natasha Because this one quote: “ staying together is more important than *how* we stay together “
Ironman is always wrong, but for the life of me, I can’t figure out how Chris Evans nailed Captain America, considering Evans hates everything about Cap
I find it hilarious that someone like Hawkeye would have to register. You would have to register all of your information to the government, for *being good at archery.*
@@marcelobertoni2967 I don't think it's more guilt with Tony. He's also using his logic. He knew something bad is coming. He saw it in his dream at Age of Ultron. The next fight, he said, they'll lose. He just want the Avengers to stick around to fight off that threat. And what do you know? Thanos came, the Avengers were fractured, and half the universe is dead.
Alexander Christopher Tony Stark is a lot like Cyborg or Lex Luthor because of them supporting the government blindly even if it’s been shown that the government officials are entirely corrupt, but he still follows them anyways because Tony’s entire character arc in the Civil War movie/comic series is that he bases claims of supporting the accords/superhero registration act off of emotional more than basing off his claims off of logic like how Captain America does.
@@alexanderchristopher6237 yeah but this logic of his is more often then not triggered by guilt, which isnt that nice, considering he s done some selfish stuff before without caring for others, until someone told him in the face.
You make a good case...however, I feel that it is a flaw to compare the fictional world of the MCU with the real world when determining who is right in this conflict. So when you spoke about the UN in real life, I'm right there with you...they are guilty of a lot of bad policy and corruption at high levels. However, the MCU has consciously worked themselves into the 'real world' while keeping certain political realities separate from our universe. Just like in Captain America: The First Avenger, Cap fights with a multi-racial, multi-cultural and even multi-gender squad of sidekicks during the war...but in reality...this kind of thing did not happen due to the politics of the time. So, when speaking about something like the UN within the confides of the MCU, we should assume they are somewhat of an idealized or 'unicorn' version of themselves unless otherwise shown. Overall though, your essay is informative and is useful when analysing the ins and outs of political ideologies. On a personal note though, I was always a Team Iron Man guy.
Aaron Cohen Except we are shown the reality and governments in the MCU are just as bad if not far worse than our own. In the first Avenger, Dugan makes a snide comment about the Japenese American soldier. In Civil War, Sharon Carter tells us that women weren't expected to succeed back when Peggy was working. Both instances essentially telling us that the cultural and political climate at the time wasn't far off from ours w/o bogging down the movie. Killmonger/his Dad's whole motivation is based on the universal mistreatment of black people around the world. Wakanda has an isolationist attitude for almost their entire existence when their advances in technology could help millions. Agent Ross intends to buy stolen vibranium from a notorious black arms dealer on behalf on the US government even when he is confronted by the rightful owners. In Winter Soldier, Hydra have infiltrated the government at every level. Shield use the Tesseract to stockpile weapons instead of developing free energy like they claim. Captain Marvel shows us women weren't allowed to be active combat pilots. The list goes on. We are constantly being shown the reality of the MCU and it's governments are in no way a more idealised version than our own, so there is no reason to assume that the UN is any different. And personally, I was always team Cap.
even in he real world women not bein allowed in the army isn't a good example of sexism! more over, you can make a list of the terrible things that corporations and individuals have donena mile long, so the idea that a random group of heroes is better than the government isn't true... not to mention, the real question for cap isn't oversight, but acountability... the safest hands did still create ultron, and battle amongs themselves, destroying part of an airport in the process!
All of your examples of the UN's track record are legitimate criticisms on their own, but none of them deal with the act of military intervention, which is the only type of example relevant to a theoretical discussion on UN control of superheroes. And I would say the real track record is very mixed, but generally leading toward world stability. Negative examples, while horrific, are fairly localized, such as the failure to act when the Rwandan genocide was occurring. Positive examples include the passage of unanimous nuclear treaties and are very focused on (and have been largely successful at cultivating) stability *between* countries. One detail about the law to be considered is whether UN rules would only apply when a superpowered individual uses their powers outside of their country of citizenship, where normal (local) laws would apply to them, and to what degree SHIELD or some other organization becoming an arm of the UN changes that relationship. Lastly, considering most threats in marvel movies either come from outside this world, are created by the Avengers themselves, or are caused by some private party not connected to a government, all this should be factored in our discussion. All that to say... 1) Interesting hypothetical discussion. 2) In this video you're approaching it entirely wrong. :(
I think you kind of missed the most important question in this debate. It's not what's better, where are better chances everyones survives, who has the best knowledge of the situation. There can be convincing arguments made for every side in this case. Like of course a local politician (not a single one but a group of polticians like the UN will always include a locally more knowledgable individually) will probably have more of a grasp on a situation than a team of people who live all their lives in one country and only leave to fight some bad guys here and there. There's not much argument. It's not like Steve is realistic and Tony is not, which you seem to suggest. Both of these characters know and acknowledge that government can be wrong. Tony is wary of corruption since the start of his run in Iron Man I, at least after the afghanistan incident, and government corruption specifically since Iron Man II. He thought that by doing shit himself he could deal with dangers more effectively and failed. Steve on the other hand was always a bit naive in that department. He was a soldier, loyal to his government and their agenda until he realized in winter soldiers that they are in fact fallible and corrupted. Just because Steve's main argument is 'governments are fallible' and Tony's is not, does not mean that Tony lives in a unicorn world where politicians are all hunky dory and loyal to a moral code. Just like Tony saying that they could screw up and make mistakes themselves while steve says 'the safest hands are oure own' does not mean that steve is ignorant to his own shortcomings. In fact never in this movie has Steve said 'I know i make mistakes' he said things like 'I might not be perfect, but my choices are still better than other peoples' .... But that of course does not mean that he thinks he'S always right. That would just make him a selfrighteous idiot. Which he is not. Ironically while you are very generous with Steve acknowledging that he does in fact know that he's not infallible, you don't extend the same generosity to Tony - who throughout the long run of his movies made it perfectly clear that he does not in fact trust government. Yet you think he lives in some unicorn world. This debate is not about who is better suited to make this decision. Because that's impossible to say. It's about who SHOULD have the authority to make this decision. If both are perfectly fine to acknowledge that yes, both the government and the avengers personally made some bad decisions, and would fuck up royally at some point. Meaning if both acknowledge that both options aren't perfect, that there will be tragedy no matter what, then the only question remaining is: IF both ways are fallible, if there is no perfect solution - WHO should be authorized to make the mistake? My problems I had with Civil War was that in the long run I couldn't exactly chose any side without a 'but'. The movies kept the debate very basic. Oversight yes or no? Steve giving a clear no to really any form of oversight, control or accountability seemed childish. Even more so his 'safest hands are our own' thing kind of lost a it of it's weight when he went on in this movie making a whole shit ton of selfish and sometimes blatantly wrong or misguided decisions often acting upon false information from a highly unrelyable source. On the other had, whily I agreed with pretty much most of what Tony said, it seemed like the actual wording of the Accords was highly fishy. Meaning ... the devil was in the details, that we never got to find out about in the movies. It was just that while I in general agreed with Tony's side, the Accords the way they were presented and pushed through just seemed a bit premature and half of what ross did was not even written within them apparently.
This video: *Exists* Us one year later: We need to ban gardening, sunbathing, and campfires to protect people from corona. What do you want people to die?
Except that the ending of the film literally spells out Tony's point of view in this situation is far more realistic. Captain America decided that his friend should be protected and not face any consequences for his actions. He, therefore, set off a chain of events that injured a teammate (nearly irreversibly), destroyed millions of dollars in property, destroyed the public faith in the independent acts of the Avengers and fucked over Tony. By the way, he did this because he didn't believe in the government and therefore stopped them from actually reacting to the real threat. The avengers aren't a couple of good Samaritans that help people out. At least 2 of them are soldiers, there's 2 spies, a giant green being who at one point was hunted by the government for destruction of property, a robot with a magical destructive stone and a woman who voluntarily was genetically altered to bring down the US/go against the avengers, and a godlike alien. They have the power to destabilise most governments. Hell, 2 of them brought down a plan to overthrow the US government, and they weren't even the most physically powerful. The assumption that if you got super strength, it would be ok to run round beating up people you disagree with because you thought it was right is not an argument, even if you allude to a couple of libertarian scholars. That's what the accords are. Either you join a peacekeeping group controlled by governments, or you're a private citizen and you can't do any of that shit.
Very good video, also bare in mind Cap wasn't completely opposed to working with the government if there were rules in place to protect private citizens but when he saw Tony's behaviour he backed out completely.
The problem is that your debunking for Iron Man's side could be used for Cap's side. People are always fallible, so won't putting decisions in as many views as possible would be better, right?
Man you are 💯 right. What we believe what we trust those peoples Hurt us most. Because as Captain America says :- it's run by people with agendas and agendas change.
Yeah, but who's watching the world's watchmen? You got some dudes with some high end tech, a super soldier, a "witch", an AI robot/human, and a deadly Russian assassin playing hero. Not to mention the others heroes out there: a 15 year old teen who got bit by a spider, a wizard, a Norse god, a gamma radiation project gone wrong with super strength (yes, I know he's in Sakaar, but the government don't know that), and a ex-con that can shrink. And don't forget the king that sits on top of all the vibranium in the world. And the ex-SHIELD operative with a deadly skill in archery. They need some eyes on to make sure they don't make bigger damages. I mean, look at Spider-Man. Damage report: a deli in Queens blew up, some bits of a suburb got blasted, the Washington Monument got hit by a bomb, a stealth jet got taken down over Coney Island, Flash's car got stolen and ruined, ferry got cut in half, and a building collapsed. You know how people want some accountability from their leaders? They probably should also asked for the same for the Avengers.
Idk I feel like government supervision is required. I don’t agree with full political control, but a group of random civilians with super powers are incredibly dangerous, and I don’t blame tony and crew for wanting control
I'm extremely late to the party. But I'll give my two cents anyway. The moral argument in this video is spot on, but it's about as fictional as the movie. Replace the superheroes with Soldiers, and the argument falls flat. We cannot have Soldiers questioning their perceived morality on every order they are given. Leaders may discuss the issues with an order, but in the end, they must follow orders regardless of feelings or beliefs. Our military cannot always function effectively if all the Soldiers decided to do what feels right when it comes to fighting a war...whatever that may be. In fact, we're already registered anyway. Our training and abilities are documented and archived. If a person doesn't want to work in defense of the nation, then quit. And to fight a "war" in a place that it was not declared in, just because you think your skills are needed to make a difference, is called vigilantism. That's illegal. Furthermore, we attacked terrorists in Afghanistan in retaliation for 9/11, and we had support from the Afghan government. There will always be a war to fight. Our war was to deter future attacks, and so far its working. From a movie stand point, Capt American is right. In reality, there's a lot of unanswered questions about the superheroes that makes saying "Iron Man is wrong" a sure thing (ie: are they actually paid employees of the government or are they freelance contractors who can terminate the agreement when they feel like it; are other nations open to allowing the Avengers free range in their country to police super criminals; and etc). Sometimes fiction cannot be a reflection of reality...that's why it's called "fiction".
TBH I don't think Tony really gave a shit about the accords, as it was said if they don't agree to be put in check it will eventually be forced, so he was more taking the easier route out, by signing and accepting Ross as boss, when really he'll end up doing hero shit anyway, like with recruiting Spiderman. On another note, the justification for the accords done by Ross in the beginning, the clips of all the previous battles was complete bullshit. He was acting as if all the damage was because of the Avengers when realistically if they weren't there it would of been extinction, or enslavement.
Easier to let individuals have freedom then punish them and take their resources in exchange for mistakes than to let government do the exact same thing. Government and other organizations are much harder to control.
Iron Man and Captain America have the exact same motive: To protect humanity, no matter the costs, so nobody's right or wrong in that sense. Personally, I'm Team Captain America. I took a quiz which had me make a choice that caused me to think. If I had extreme super strength, and there was a guy in need of CPR, and I knew how to do it, would I, even though I knew there was a chance I could severely injure him, or would I leave him with someone else less capable, or leave him to die? Iron Man had a good reason. If the Avengers have a huge chance of accidentally killing or injuring innocent bystanders while saving others, the best choice would be to stay out of it altogether. Captain America believes that no matter what, if someone's in need, help them, no matter the risk, which is where I stand. I believe accidents and mistakes are part of life, but great power can also be learned to control. I don't believe it's right to leave helpless people to find for themselves if you CAN do something about it. If I had superpowers, I would use them for good.
Thing is, by your own solution, holding each avenger accountable as an individual, they have all already committed multiple felonies. They have acted in extra-judicial ways that would not be tolerated in any other private individual. If they are going to operate above the law, then they need to be sanctioned by the law. In the real world, an incorruptible paragon of justice like Captain America, does not exist. I'd rather have the power the avengers represent ruled by committee, corrupt or otherwise, than self-regulating autocratically.
Tony would be right if the UN would be proposing a council instead of just wanting to eat the avengers for their own agendas. If we think about it, is still isn't ideal for a group of sups to take global security decisions on their own. A council, composed of sups, international politicians and civilians would be the ideal way to go imo. Yes, the debates would be long, but I see no other choice.
Tony Stark was an individual Avenger doing what he thought was best when he created Ultron. But what happened? Thousands of people died in the ensuing battle between Ultron and his robots and the Avengers. Sokovia itself was devastated. Now, we didn't see the inbetween part, but was Tony really and seriously held accountable for his actions? Not really. What happens for the private citizen with no powers whose life gets disrupted by two superheroes wrecking their city because of bad guys? Where is the recourse for those actions? It's funny, because I do generally agree with Cap, but I also want to see both sides of the argument. One problem I have is that you take the governments' worst actions to show what "might" happen. But the opposite is true. I can take an individual's worst actions to show how power really shouldn't be given them. If the idea is that a group of individuals shouldn't be policed by the government, then you have groups like the KKK or the people who turned in fellow German Jews to the Nazis doing what they think is right and ultimately doing something wrong. It works both ways. Spiderman says it well in Civil War. When Cap asks what else Tony told Peter, Peter replies, "That you're wrong, and you think you're right. It makes you dangerous." This is a key sentence. When someone is wrong, but they think they are right, and that person does something based off of that idea, then they can become very dangerous. Without something to regulate them, a group of people who do wrong can be very dangerous. ISIS is a fantastic example. They are a splinter group who thinks they are in the right but are judged by (pretty much everyone) to be in the wrong. But by the logic of Steve, they shouldn't be regulated or controlled, because they think that what they are doing is right. The casualties that were suffered in Sokovia and in New York because of the Avengers? We were really saving people, so more people would have died. The argument of ISIS? We're saving the righteous people because the infidels corrupting our people. Perhaps that's not entirely what they think, and perhaps they are more extreme, but the same logic is there. It is the good guys fighting against the bad guys to save other good guys.
my understanding is that ISIS, like the Kurds, are trying to make a unified country in the area, based on war and religious/ethnic purity rather than using the arbitrary lines drawn by people who'd never been there before
Josh Paladi I wtf this is a movie and some how you people are talking about Hitler and ISIS. How in the world did this happen, both sides have wrongs and rights. Both of them are right in some ways and in other ways they are wrong. Do you realize Both Steve Rogers and Tony Stark want to protect the world. But there are two different ways that work but have some bad parts to it, (skip to bottom to see a simpler version of what I am going to say) if the avengers are controlled by the gov. they probably won't be in the action ever again, and there is no way the government could do the things the avengers do, it will be the end. But I'd they are not controlled more things like what happend in the beginning of civil war more happen again, America and probably the whole world would be bankrupt because of the destruction. So in short:. Steve's side: Good: the avengers could protect the world Bad: The destruction caused by the avengers trying to protect could lead to bigger things Tony's side: Good: the government can safely and less destructively save lives. The avengers can't do that cuz well *they have a hulk* Bad:Like all lot of people mentioned the government could go corrupt, and what I said is that they won't be as successful in trying to protect the world, the government can't cuz well *they dont have a hulk*
Jared Poon you fail to see the point. If they’re allowed total freedom on their missions, then they get away with all and any consequences they are responsible for. Saying that “if they weren’t there to save those people, more people would’ve died” is such a weak argument, because honestly, the Avengers are capable of doing so much better without all the destruction and casualties they leave in their wake. Should Tony be held responsible for creating Ultron? Definitely, and that’s what this was. Any super-powered individual fell under the conditions of the Sokovia Accords.
Many times I ask myself a question. Could gouvernment save the sokovia or New York case? They were litteraly intemding to nuke Manhattan with at least million of people on it. That is why gouvernment in mcu make me sick.
Another interesting point is this: You talk about the government's ill use of military forces as support for Captain America's viewpoint. But to counter this: With the wars in the middle east and other operatives since WWII, who made the executive decisions? Congress has not formally declared war since the 40's, and we have ended up in blunder after blunder due to congress ceding war-making powers to none other than a single individual, the president. Could many of these been avoided if they had to run through congress first? I have no doubt that the government makes bad decisions, for sure. But I would trust committee action and procedure over the personal whims of a few ultra-powerful citizens who aren't accountable to the public. We get great examples of private individuals making better decisions than the government in superheroes because they are just that: fictionalized superheroes. We have had superpowers like this in the past with moguls like Carnegies and Rockefellers whose personal grudges leveled entire economies. It is more often that an individual makes more emotional, personal, or reckless decisions than a committee who are in check with one another. Personally, I would argue that America is a horrible example of public-accountability, because our government is barely representative, if at all. So people here like to assume the government has no public accountability and seek to put as much power as possible in the hands of private billionaires. But this is not "freedom". It is globe-affecting action without representation.
interesting. See, I do agree with some of this, but it was a different era back in the mid to late 1900's. See, you talk about how no one person should have that power, because they screw it up. So, you want to give that power to a circle pf those super powerful people: the united nations. I don't think they should have that power. from the america perspective you give as an example, i agree. That is why I think a drastically reduced federal government would be very beneficial to our country.
Captain America is WRONG! The guy committed a bunch of crimes both domestically and internationally and also got 4 people that was helping him put in prison just to prove his point. Not to mention he betrayed both Howard and Tony for a psycho murdering Bucky.
I could tell very early on you were Team Cap & this would be a video on his behalf. The Accords were also created because of Banner hulking out from Wanda's nightmare & the explosion in the beginning of Civil War. Imagine the police being able to run the streets and actually have no rules to abide by. Sometimes it seems that way but imagine it were true. Tony sees the Accords as their Code of Conduct as does everyone else who sided with him. If you think Tony Stark would allow anyone to just hold him by the balls you are wrong. Remember that Incredible Hulk post credits scene where he comes into the bar to talk to General Ross? Tony knows not to fully submit to his "agendas". He even tells Cap they'll be amendments and safeguards for after things cool off with the public. They did a great job creating this situation because no one was completely right or wrong. Cap's actions during the rest of the movie were not so good. All he cared about was Bucky.
Captain not tellling Tony is a perfect example of why the Avengers can't be trusted. When something is inconvenient for Captain America he'll lie about it. If something bad happens in and the Avengers are responsible who's to say he'll take responsibility
Captain America is easily my favorite character in the MCU. Despite such a negative view of the US in the modern world, he manages to grow beyond that trope into a well written character while embodying everything good that the nation claims to be founded on: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
I’m on caps side, but I do believe that in the actual fight Ironman would of smoked cap and Bucky. The writers should of somehow made it that Tony went into the fight with an already extremely damaged suit. With how the fight actually started it was kind of unbelievable that cap had any chance whatsoever.
