steverfan - Tumblr blog

[steverfan]

Damn you missed the part where Wendy blew up Wakandans huh

Damn, you missed the part where they’re called the Sokovia Accords, huh. And how the bomber (Brock Rumlow) is responsible for detonating the bomb, not the bomb squad member (Wanda Maximoff) who tried to contain it.

Sharon would have never had to sneak out the shield and wings if it weren't for T*ny and those damn accords so once again he's another villains origin story ajskajebsj

[steverfan]

No, none of them meet the definition of terrorist, “one who engages in intentional violence to achieve political aims, especially during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants.”

You do know that international terrorism laws are not based on the wikipedia summary of ‘terrorism’, right? In fact, did you know that there is no internationally recognized legal definition of terrorism? In fact, terrorism isn’t even a crime, in the strictest sense. Instead, terrorism laws are based on the violation of established treaties between nations. 

LOL - You do know that not only do I not call the Avengers terrorists, neither does anyone in Civil War? Not a single person accused them of terrorism. Because it seems that your framing of the U.N.’s position is your head canon, and not what actually happened. General Ross never accused them of terrorism, international or otherwise. Neither did T’Chaka. It seems that you are the one using “big, scary words” that the film did not. And you didn’t explain why any of the Avengers should be punished when they were never accused. Or explain why you think the word “fuck-up” is appropriate to describe saving the world, or “pissy” as a response to being stripped of rights.

So you can see how unimpressed I am at you throwing a dictionary definition of terrorism at me. The only thing you made clear is that you don’t even know the very first thing regarding international terrorism laws, including the basic theory on which it is based. 

I don’t need to, because your accusation of terrorism doesn’t fit canon and doesn’t fit what the Avengers do. No one in the film thought they were terrorists, so you thinking so is not really relevant. So consider me unimpressed as well. :)

The Avengers were operating outside the established counter-terrorism organization of the UN and thus violating established treaties on every international mission regarding border sovereignty, jurisdiction, use of military force, etc.

It’s very interesting that you’re still insisting that the proper response of an authority to an event involving a certain group of people is not to contact those people to mention problems and ask those people to participate in a dialogue about oversight, but instead to hide away from those people for years crafting a document that strips those people of their rights and tries to take control of them. It certainly is a strange perspective.

Look, I don’t have the time or energy to go point for point on this, and frankly I have no desire to do so with you in particular. Have a good day.

How disappointing...I was really interested in your explanation of how you calling Avengers terrorists holds validity when no one in canon does, and how creating a document in secret stripping people of rights is a valid action of authority when the phone was there every day since 2012 to call the Avengers.

Have a good day!

Sharon would have never had to sneak out the shield and wings if it weren’t for T*ny and those damn accords so once again he’s another villains origin story ajskajebsj

[steverfan]

Again, this does not seem to be what actually happened.

You are making one extremely wrong assumption here. I do not think it was good. I am not defending how the MCU was made. I think how civil war was handled and the resulting necessary retcons and rewrites shows how horribly the MCU was planned and executed. You say the accords were about control, but as you note that control is selectively exerted in ways that make little sense except if we look at it through a lens of what was most convenient for the marvel writers at any given time. It was handled poorly from the get go.

You are claiming that denying people’s rights is just a slap on the wrist. If that is not excusing/defending, what is it? Across the MCU properties the Accords were enforced to strip people of rights. They were always used to control people, not to perform oversight. This is consistent, not arbitrary.

Lets take one of your points and examine it in detail, because it actually perfectly illustrates the problem with Civil War. Steve calls what is happening to Wanda internment. Except that is explicitly not what it is.

What we see in civil war is a single member of an extra legal paramilitary strike team being put under house arrest for a couple of days after said strike team was involved in a bombing that resulted in the death of a head of state, with the stated long term consequence for Wanda and Steve was being removed from the Avengers.

This is not correct. First of all, Wanda Maximoff was not involved in the Vienna incident in any way, shape, or form. Nor was any member of the Avenger involved with the bombing or death of T’Chaka, except Natasha Romanoff as a witness. Wanda was already being illegally confined when the bombing occurred.

Additionally, it is illegal internment. There was no “house arrest.” There was no due process, legal representation, or respecting of rights. Wanda was locked up because of what she was, an enhanced. We know this because Wanda was not approached by an authority and informed of her rights, nor of any crime of which she was accused. Wanda was not offered legal representation, the same as Bucky Barnes was not offered legal representation.

The Avengers had been breaking international law for years. You are not allowed to do what the Avengers were doing, that has been settled international law for decades.

The Avengers had been operating since 2012. There is no evidence that any country or governing body had a problem with how things were done, until the Avengers were blindsided with the Accords. That is further proof that the Accords are about control, not about accountability. No nation stepped up after Sokovia to open a dialogue and say “we’re having some problems with how you’re operating.” That would be evidence that the 117 countries wanted accountability. Instead, they constructed a document in secret that strips people of their rights. The Accords are about control.

By even the most generous interpretation of international law they are all terrorists a dozen times over and it finally caught up to them in civil war. Honestly the biggest injustice here was that Steve, the leader of the strike team, and Tony, leader of the organization, were not subject to the same punishment. They got off for political reasons (watsonian) and for plot convenience (doylist).

No, none of them meet the definition of terrorist, “one who engages in intentional violence to achieve political aims, especially during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants.” That would be suggesting that an arsonist and a firefighter are the same. Why would you expect Tony and Steve to be punished when no one ever brought charges against them, or even brought them in for questioning? That does not make sense. In fact, the U.N. had the opportunity every day since 2012 to bring charges, ask for changes, or simply protest the course of events - if the U.N. truly wanted accountability. Instead, they wanted control, so they spent years in secret creating Accords that stripped people of their rights.

Wanda was not in internment. Steve used that word because it is big and scary and the MCU writers desperately wanted to have their cake and eat it to but it was entirely incorrectly applied. She was imprisoned as she waited for a predetermined pardon for being an international terrorist.

You are again ignoring the fact that no due process took place. We saw the scene when Wanda found out that she was being confined to the compound. Wanda was not approached by an authority, informed that she was under investigation, and told not to leave town. She was being imprisoned illegally because she was an enhanced, to “prevent another incident.” She was being held against her will because of what she was. That is internment. And she was not accused of anything, so there was nothing for which to be pardoned. No one in the news reports mentioned a pardon, so that is not canon at all.

This perfectly illustrates how poorly this was all handled in the MCU. If they wanted a story where Wanda was unjustly imprisoned for being a super they could have written that. They could have written an internment story. But what they wrote was a story where (admittedly well meaning) international terrorists got pissy that the world finally decided that international law applied to them after one to many fuck ups and then wall papered over this by having Captain America use the word “internment” incorrectly.

Internment was used correctly, as stated above. “Pissy,” “terrorist,” and “fuck ups” are being incorrectly used in the paragraph above. As people have pointed out, the Avengers minimized casualties. And the firefighters are not responsible for the people who die in a fire, the arsonists are. Stopping the subjugation of Earth, the Hydra Insight massacre, the complete destruction of the planet, and the release of a bioweapon and a bomb in a crowded marketplace are not “fuck ups.” The only actual “fuck up” was not caused by the Avengers, but by Tony Stark and Bruce Banner acting alone when they unleashed Ultron on the Internet behind the other team members’ backs - which the U.N. is not aware of, so can’t count. And to call a refusal to sign away one’s rights as “pissy” is uncalled for and insulting to the characters.

I don’t like that the accords were handled so poorly and inconsistently. I don’t like that Civil War was the source of so many plot holes, I don’t like that Tony and T'challa never had to deal with the consequences of the accords. I don’t like that the Marvel writers try to have their cake and eat it too at every possible moment by making a highly serial story that ignores continuity whenever it is slightly inconvenient.

The Accords have not been handled inconsistently. They are used in every case to strip people of their rights and control people. They are never used for oversight.

As far as what happened in the TV shows, no, I don’t know what retcons they made 5 years after the fact. If your movie doesn’t make sense unless you consume supplemental material then it is a bad movie and you fucked it up. I basically gave up on the MCU after it was so poorly handled in the third phase and have not seen anything since Endgame.

There were no retcons. Agents of Shield, Jessica Jones, and the other shows were concurrent with Civil War, not recent. The Ant-Man and the Wasp and the treatment of Vision in Infinity War were not retcons either, but direct results of the Accords pointed out by Sam Wilson in Civil War - people were “Lojacked like criminals.” The Accords were always about control and always wrong.

Sharon would have never had to sneak out the shield and wings if it weren’t for T*ny and those damn accords so once again he’s another villains origin story ajskajebsj

[steverfan]

This doesn’t seem to be a complete picture of the MCU situation.

In the movies Tony backed an international law specifically designed to make an American paramilitary organization accountable to the countries in which that organization has been operating without oversight across the world with no respect to borders or local laws. 

This is not the full picture. The Accords are not “oversight, with safeguards,” that Steve Rogers said he would consider. The Accords in the MCU are about control. They are literally the “Registration and Deployment of Advanced Individuals” that state on the signing page that no one may take action unless the U.N. says so. The Accords also can’t be about accountability, because the very people who signed them (T’Challa and Tony) are the ones we see violating borders and airspace and operating wherever they want. The Accords are useless.

The Accords also strip enhanced people of their rights to due process, legal representation, and habeas corpus. We know that the Accords allow Vision to be implanted with a tracker, the Pyms to be hunted even though they never signed the Accords, and for people to be taken to the Raft and never offered a lawyer or release. Also, what do you say about Tony violating the Accords, literally taking his personal WMD to Siberia with no permission to do so? Tony “operated without oversight across the world with no respect to borders or local laws.” So what do you think his punishment should have been for committing the very crimes you claim he signed the Accords to prevent?

The law is basically that supers are not allowed to break whatever laws or engage in whatever risky behavior they want and are legally responsible for their big fuck ups. Remember, the accords were created primarily in response to a fuck up so big that it almost destroyed the world and did destroy an entire country.

This is simply not the case. The Accords are never shown preventing anyone from engaging in risky behavior. Instead, they are shown stripping people of their rights. The Accords were used to hunt down the Pyms in Ant-Man and the Wasp, even though the Pyms never signed nor did they ever participate in Sokovia, Lagos, Liepzig, or any other operation. In addition, the people who are being controlled by the Accords are stripped of their rights, as we see in Civil War, the Marvel TV series, and Infinity War where Vision is implanted with a tracker. Exactly as Sam Wilson said, “Lojacked like criminals.” What also seems to be glossed over is that the Accords were created in secret and presented only three days before ratification, with no time to muster a response. Additionally, there was no provision for making changes. The only choices the Avengers were given were to sign or retire. That is not a sign of seeking accountability, which would involve opening a dialogue. It is a sign of seeking control.

The law itself is ridiculously lenient to the point of being unrealistic. Basically any super who agreed to the accords, even long after the fact and many violations, got a slap on the wrist and a stern “don’t do it again!”. 117 countries agreed that to break the accords would be counted as international terrorism and yet no one who did break the accords suffered more than short term imprisonment (measured in days) followed by a relatively short period of house arrest. Most of them didn’t even get that and were pardoned of all violations on the spot when they signed what basically amounts to an agreement to follow this extremely reasonable law.

You are aware that the only reason that the short term imprisonment was short-term is because Team Cap was broken out? And that the Marvel TV series said that people were picked up on Accords violations, taken to the Raft, and never seen again? The Sokovia Accords are in fact not a reasonable law, because they enable the implantation of trackers and the creation of a special class of people who are then denied their basic rights. That is what we actually see happen in the MCU. That is exactly what happened to Japanese Americans during World War 2. That’s why the writers had Steve use the word “internment,” to draw the parallel and point out how wrong the Accords were.

And if you believe the Accords are good and just, do you then condemn Tony Stark for signing the Accords, and then violating them multiple times in Civil War and then again with the creation of EDITH? Tony should have been brought up on charges and imprisoned the same as anyone else who violated the Accords, but Tony hid his crimes. If the Accords were such a just and wonderful thing, why did Tony not come forward, take responsibility for his actions, and face the consequences? Especially if they would be only a slap on the wrist and a stern “don’t do it again”?

Sharon would have never had to sneak out the shield and wings if it weren't for T*ny and those damn accords so once again he's another villains origin story ajskajebsj

[steverfan]

My conversation was cut off, so I responded to littlemissstark:

https://steverfan.tumblr.com/post/649828201708896256/still-waiting-for-evidence

Sharon would have never had to sneak out the shield and wings if it weren't for T*ny and those damn accords so once again he's another villain's origin story ajskajebsj

[steverfan]

Still waiting for evidence...

steverfan

This is a conversation that was cut off. I’m putting my reply here..

Italics is littlemissstark.

There are some interesting assertions here. Do you have any evidence?

How can u have a history of us imperialism where the us actively ravaged the Middle East and countries in the global south for oil and resources, refuse to allow those countries to flourish or even SURVIVE under the covid pandemic, and then be like ‘Steve Rogers was right in cw.’

You are aware that Tony Stark traveled to the Middle East to show off his Jericho missile and suggesting that the American military let one “slip off the chain,” right? Tony was the American imperialist for decades, making weapons to enable the U.S. to maintain military superiority in the Middle East and other countries that the U.S. exploited and continues to exploit. And Tony kept all of his blood money even after he started making his WMDs for his private use.

‘Governments have agendas’ tell me Captain AMERICA who has govt agendas?? Enlighten me.

If you think it is okay for private superpowered Americans to ravage other countries wearing their pretty little costumes and kill other people in the name of ‘saving the world’ with zero consequences, then you’re moronic. And so helplessly, stupidly American.

This is really funny, because Steve has rejected the American political and government structure in every movie he’s been in. It’s Tony who is Ross’s and the U.S. government’s lapdog. And it’s so amusing that you’re dismissing the fact that the Earth would be a wasteland if the Chitauri or Tony’s murder-bot hadn’t been stopped by the Avengers. The Avengers didn’t ravage anything or anyone, they stopped the invasions. It’s like you can’t tell the difference between the arsonist and the person putting out the fire.

Because NEWSFLASH, the whole concept of the Avengers is propaganda. Americans invade other countries in the name of ‘saving them’ when actually they’re killing innocent civilians with no impunity. Sound familiar?

The Avengers are killing innocent civilians with no impunity? Really? You are aware that if people die during a fire, the firefighters aren’t considered murderers, right? Or are you claiming that Iron Man was executing women and children in the streets?

Interesting how they made Tony Stark the villain for saying ‘hey how bout we don’t do that?’ And people hate him for it.

No, Tony Stark is a villain for being a hypocrite who tried to blackmail and guilt people into signing away their rights, then turned around and not only violated the Accords he claimed to support, but committed multiple additional crimes. Tony blackmailed Peter into becoming a child soldier, brought an unregistered enhanced across international borders without permission from Germany, the U.N., Secretary Ross, or even Aunt May. Tony shot unarmed people and shot Bucky in the back. Then Tony hid all those crimes rather than accept responsibility and face the consequences. That is why he is considered villainous.

And then people wonder why Tony Stark is beloved globally and Steve Rogers isn’t.

Evidence? Because the polls I’ve seen rank Steve Rogers higher, and Captain America merchandise sells far more than Iron Man.

littlemissstark

I’m not gonna argue with your dumb ass who doesn’t even crack open a history book to look up American imperialism. My country’s people are dying bc of america’s commitment to suffocating developing countries. Tony’s entire purpose as a character is to show someone who pushes for accountability because he recognized that he was wrong. I don’t need your patronizing ass to tell me who to consider a villain or not esp when Steve refuses to take responsibility for civilian casualties who are mainly poc and innocents from the global south. Also if Tony employed Peter as a child soldier , then how come Wanda isn’t considered one since y’all bend over backwards defending her and calling her a kid. Hypocrisy. Get off my post with your smooth brained ass, block me, and fuck all the way off with your MERCHANDISE STATISTICS FOR GODS SAKE. the jokes write themselves.

I’m not gonna argue with your dumb ass who doesn’t even crack open a history book to look up American imperialism. My country’s people are dying bc of america’s commitment to suffocating developing countries. 

America’s commitment to suffocating developing countries was fueled by Tony Stark’s weapons for two decades. And Tony created EDITH, which violates everyone’s privacy and like Project Insight, will kill anyone anywhere at the user’s whim. That seems pretty imperialistic, don’t you think? Also, Steve was on ice, so it’s ridiculous to blame him for America’s actions when he was not there. Also note that the Avengers are not furthering an American agenda when they are saving people. Steve was right in Civil War because 1) You do not sign a contract you disagree with, especially one that strips people of their rights; 2) The Accords strip people of their rights. This is a bad thing and in violation of the Geneva Conventions and Declaration of Human Rights, along with many constitutions.

Tony’s entire purpose as a character is to show someone who pushes for accountability because he recognized that he was wrong.

Really? Because Tony’s arc seems to be pushing for consequences for everyone but himself. Did Tony not recognize it was wrong to blackmail a 15-year-old into becoming a child soldier? That is was wrong to lie to the child’s guardian about his intentions for the child? That it was wrong to sign the Accords, then violate them by going without permission to a country that did not give permission for him to be there, or even know he was there? To hide his crimes, rather than take accountability and face the consequences? And never did Tony admit he was wrong to force people to sign the Accords. He also decided that Ultron was a great idea, and that his “suit of armor around the world” was worth the loss of people’s “precious freedoms.” So while he may have decided to make weapons for himself in Iron Man 1 (rather than selling even more to the U.S. government), he hasn’t actually pushed for accountability or admitted he was wrong.

I don’t need your patronizing ass to tell me who to consider a villain or not esp when Steve refuses to take responsibility for civilian casualties who are mainly poc and innocents from the global south.

Evidence? Steve has only been awake for a few years and was working for either Shield or the Avengers. The person putting out the fire is not responsible for the fire, the arsonist is. In the same way, the people failing to stop the bomb are not responsible for the injuries caused by the bomb, the bomber is. Steve has never attacked civilians, unlike Tony, who fired his Iron Man weapons into a crowd during Iron Man 2. So you agree that Tony should have accepted responsibility for that, right? That he should have been jailed for endangering innocents?

Also if Tony employed Peter as a child soldier , then how come Wanda isn’t considered one since y’all bend over backwards defending her and calling her a kid. Hypocrisy.

You do recognize the difference between a young adult who is called a kid and an actual child, right? Peter is 15. It’s not hypocrisy to call him a child. Tony should never have gone near him, never threatened him with exposure, never taken him over international borders without permission and full consent from Aunt May, never violated the Accords by failing to register an enhanced person, never endangered him by putting him in a battle with trained fighters, and never hid the crimes Tony committed by involving Peter.

Also, no one is defending Wanda here, so your claim seems to be an attempt to avoid providing the requested evidence.

Get off my post with your smooth brained ass, block me, and fuck all the way off with your MERCHANDISE STATISTICS FOR GODS SAKE. the jokes write themselves.

You do recognize the irony of your statement, yes? You bulldozed your way onto someone else’s thread. So you really don’t have any standing complaining that someone asked you to provide evidence for your assertions. You don’t like my evidence, why not prove me wrong by providing your own? I noticed you still haven’t provided any evidence that Tony is “beloved globally.” Do you actually have any evidence? Or is this just another Tony stan head canon?

[steverfan]

lmfao steve is literally referred to as a war criminal in the mcu……

Steve is referred to as a war criminal by the gym teacher in Homecoming. A character who was presented as a joke and not very smart. Is that really your source? Do please provide the war Steve was a criminal in, because Steve’s only war was World War 2, and he is a war hero, not a war crminial.

and it was a full joke because people love to call tony stark a war criminal and don’t even know what that term means.

You don’t seem to know what the term means either, if you are calling Steve one. And Tony is not a war criminal, but a war profiteer with decades of blood on his hands.

and steve didn’t have to sign the accords—they were subject to amendment.

Tony lied in the pen scene. Robert Downey Jr. admitted that Tony was saying anything he could to get Steve to sign. We also know that the Accords were never amended, because Vision is implanted with a tracker and the Pyms were being hunted in Ant-Man and the Wasp. We have zero evidence Tony even tried to have them amended, much less that the Accords were ever actually going to be amended.

but steve going to and protecting bucky the way he did while being under the microscope for not signing an act for superhuman registration and regulation put forth by 117 countries due to the destructive tendencies of the avengers…. how do you not see that as a yikes like that is very very bad, regardless of bucky’s innocence

So protecting an innocent man from being executed by an illegal kill squad based on a faked photo is a bad thing in your eyes? But the registration and stripping of rights of enhanced people is a good thing? Do you understand how warped that perspective is? But if you think it was wrong for Steve to save Bucky, then you must also believe that Tony was extremely wrong for going to Siberia without permission in violation of the Accords, right? It’s a yikes and very very bad, regardless of Tony’s intentions, right? Because you can’t condemn Steve without more strongly condemning Tony, because Tony signed the Accords, violated them, and then hid his crimes rather than accept responsibility and face the consequences of his actions. Unless you’d like to admit that like Tony, you’d be a hypocrite.

Sharon would have never had to sneak out the shield and wings if it weren't for T*ny and those damn accords so once again he's another villains origin story ajskajebsj

[steverfan]

There are some interesting assertions here. Do you have any evidence?

How can u have a history of us imperialism where the us actively ravaged the Middle East and countries in the global south for oil and resources, refuse to allow those countries to flourish or even SURVIVE under the covid pandemic, and then be like ‘Steve Rogers was right in cw.’

You are aware that Tony Stark traveled to the Middle East to show off his Jericho missile and suggesting that the American military let one “slip off the chain,” right? Tony was the American imperialist for decades, making weapons to enable the U.S. to maintain military superiority in the Middle East and other countries that the U.S. exploited and continues to exploit. And Tony kept all of his blood money even after he started making his WMDs for his private use.

‘Governments have agendas’ tell me Captain AMERICA who has govt agendas?? Enlighten me.

If you think it is okay for private superpowered Americans to ravage other countries wearing their pretty little costumes and kill other people in the name of ‘saving the world’ with zero consequences, then you’re moronic. And so helplessly, stupidly American.

This is really funny, because Steve has rejected the American political and government structure in every movie he’s been in. It’s Tony who is Ross’s and the U.S. government’s lapdog. And it’s so amusing that you’re dismissing the fact that the Earth would be a wasteland if the Chitauri or Tony’s murder-bot hadn’t been stopped by the Avengers. The Avengers didn’t ravage anything or anyone, they stopped the invasions. It’s like you can’t tell the difference between the arsonist and the person putting out the fire.

Because NEWSFLASH, the whole concept of the Avengers is propaganda. Americans invade other countries in the name of ‘saving them’ when actually they’re killing innocent civilians with no impunity. Sound familiar?

The Avengers are killing innocent civilians with no impunity? Really? You are aware that if people die during a fire, the firefighters aren’t considered murderers, right? Or are you claiming that Iron Man was executing women and children in the streets?

Interesting how they made Tony Stark the villain for saying ‘hey how bout we don’t do that?’ And people hate him for it.

No, Tony Stark is a villain for being a hypocrite who tried to blackmail and guilt people into signing away their rights, then turned around and not only violated the Accords he claimed to support, but committed multiple additional crimes. Tony blackmailed Peter into becoming a child soldier, brought an unregistered enhanced across international borders without permission from Germany, the U.N., Secretary Ross, or even Aunt May. Tony shot unarmed people and shot Bucky in the back. Then Tony hid all those crimes rather than accept responsibility and face the consequences. That is why he is considered villainous.

And then people wonder why Tony Stark is beloved globally and Steve Rogers isn’t.

Evidence? Because the polls I’ve seen rank Steve Rogers higher, and Captain America merchandise sells far more than Iron Man.

How can u have a history of us imperialism where the us actively ravaged the Middle East and countries in the global south for oil and resources, refuse to allow those countries to flourish or even SURVIVE under the covid pandemic, and then be like ‘Steve Rogers was right in cw.’

‘Governments have agendas’ tell me Captain AMERICA who has govt agendas?? Enlighten me.

If you think it is okay for private superpowered Americans to ravage other countries wearing their pretty little costumes and kill other people in the name of ‘saving the world’ with zero consequences, then you’re moronic. And so helplessly, stupidly American.

Because NEWSFLASH, the whole concept of the Avengers is propaganda. Americans invade other countries in the name of ‘saving them’ when actually they’re killing innocent civilians with no impunity. Sound familiar?

Interesting how they made Tony Stark the villain for saying ‘hey how bout we don’t do that?’ And people hate him for it.

And then people wonder why Tony Stark is beloved globally and Steve Rogers isn’t.

[steverfan]

I’m very curious about this:

Also some how the anti - Tony’s have gotten it into their mind that Team Cap was thrown into the Raft bcz they didn’t sign the Accords.

For fucks sake watch the movie, Team Cap was thrown into the Raft bcz most of them were Americans and then they destroyed an entire airport in Germany. Now even if they were German citizens, they would still be thrown into jail for destruction of public property. Tony and his team literally gave them the option to surrender and come back quietly bcz otherwise Ross and the other authorities were more than ready to send in actual police/military to apprehend.

Actually, Team Iron Man did the major destruction of the airport when Vision took out the control tower. That will put the whole airport out of commission for months. Also, as far as I’m aware, the problem people have is that the Accords allow the Raft to be used even though the conditions violate the prisoners’ rights, and the fact that the Accords denied the prisoners’ the rights of legal representation, due process, or habeas corpus. You’re also blatantly ignoring that Team Cap wasn’t there to fight Team Iron Man, they were there to hop a plane to stop five Winter Soldiers from being unleashed. The world was in danger. (Note that Tony violates the Accords himself a few scenes later. You do agree that Tony should also be on the raft for violating the Accords he signed, right?)

Secondly, what the hell is with this bullshit of Tony was ok with working with Ross. First of all, it wasn’t Tony who asked Ross to represent the American Government, that one’s on American government itself. Stop making it seem like Tony personally went and invited Ross. Also Tony himself admits in Civil War that the accords aren’t perfect and there’s room for negotiation. It’s just to get something you have to give something.

Tony showed he is okay with reporting to Ross. He went to the Raft and reported to him. Tony didn’t protest the prisoners’ treatment, do anything to help them or amend the Accords, and deliberately exposed Clint’s secret family to Ross. Also, there was no negotiation offered. The choice was sign or retire. And Tony’s claim of amendments was a lie. The Accords were never amended. And you don’t sign a contract that strips you of your rights and hope that someday you get your rights back. That’s stupid. Also, you don’t sign a contract you disagree with. No one should be expected to.

Thirdly, why in the whole world do people think Tony personally wanted Team Cap to end up in Raft or he himself created it ??

As far as I’m aware, no one made this claim. They rightly pointed out that Tony didn’t care what happened to the prisoners. He never acted to help them or said one thing against the way they were being treated.

If you cause destruction of public property on a scale as wide as Team Cap did in Civil War, do you genuinely think the authorities would let you walk around freely after that ?

Team Iron Man caused the major damage (the control tower), and the major injury. And people should expect due process, legal representation, the right of habeas corpus, and conditions that don’t violate the Geneva Conventions.

Also do you genuinely think they would put superhumans in normal jail where they can literally bend the metal and get out of it ?? I mean I get it something like a Raft prison is genuinely terrifying and morally ambiguous, but please tell me you genuinely didn’t expect the authorities to put superhumans in a normal prison where the only thing keep them jailed is their own will and they can walk out of quite easily ???

Sam, Clint, Scott, Zemo, and the Vulture are not enhanced. Also, no matter the type of place, the prisoners should not be denied due process, etc., mentioned above.

I would understand if they had put Team Cap into prison without any proof of guilt or crime or something like that, but this guy’s literally destroyed an entire airport for the entire world to see. They weren’t thrown into jail over nothing.

They didn’t cause the major destruction, Vision did. And none of that justifies the denial of basic rights.

And if your argument is why wasn’t Team Iron Man thrown into jail, then watch the movie. Tony asked permission from the authorities to go handle the situation quietly and that was the very first option he offered Team Cap. He literally mentions in the scene itself that his idea was to go easy on them.

Tony did not listen to Steve warn Tony about the Winter Soldiers. Tony literally said “I’m done” after less than a minute and Tony started the fight. Also, Tony did not ask permission from anyone to go to Siberia. He violated the Accords, multiple countries’ airspace, and the sovereignty of the local government when he landed in Siberia. So Tony should have been in the Raft as well, don’t you agree? The only reason he isn’t is because Tony is a hypocrite who hid his crimes rather than accept responsibility for his actions.

And if you still think that Team Iron Man should also be held responsible for their part in the destruction, then honestly that was the entire basis of Accords in the first place. That just bcz you are in the right, just bcz you have good intentions, that doesn’t magically absolve you from the responsibility of your actions, that doesn’t magically give you the right to fuck over the sovereignty of other countries and not face consequences for it.

You do recognize the irony in your paragraph, right? Tony is the one who “just because he is in the right, because he had good intentions, doesn’t magically absolve him from the responsibility of his actions, that doesn’t magically give him the right to fuck over other countries and not face consequences for it.” Tony did exactly what you said when he invaded Siberia, so he should have faced very severe consequences, don’t you agree? Because he was even worse than Team Cap. Tony committed the very same crimes, but Tony also was a hypocrite who signed the Accords, then ignored them multiple times and hid his actions rather than accept responsibility and face the consequences.

Sharon would have never had to sneak out the shield and wings if it weren't for T*ny and those damn accords so once again he's another villains origin story ajskajebsj

[steverfan]

This makes me really curious:

Not to mention, there’s this weirdly false dichotomy going on in fandom surrounding the Accords. He didn’t have to sign them. He just had to STOP going into other people’s countries and blowing stuff up without their knowledge or permission.

So what’s your opinion on Tony invading Siberia? He signed the Accords, but didn’t “stop going into other people’s countries and blowing stuff up without their knowledge or permission.” That makes Tony even worse than Steve, because Tony did all the same things but is also a hypocrite because he did them after signing the Accords, right?

He could’ve amended them until he agreed with them or simply made a deal with each country he wanted to continue acting as military police in, so that it didn’t feel like he was invading, destroying their property, ans causing unnecessary casualties. There was a third (and a fourth) option if he didn’t like the Accords as they were. Steve refused to take any of them.

You did watch the film, right? The Avengers were given two choices: sign or retire. Making amendments or deals were not part of the options and were never planned to be, because they were given the document three days before ratification. That’s not even enough time to do a thorough reading, much less a response. And again, what’s your response to Tony Stark paying lip service to believing that he should stop “invading, destroying property, and causing unnecessary casualties,” but actually invading, destroying property, and attacking whomever he wants, including shooting unarmed people in the back like a villain?

Plus, that doesn’t even begin to address this weird idea that other people are responsible for your bad behavior and that literal villains can blame others for their own decisions to do terrible things. It’s like a psychopath blaming is killing spree on that one girl who rejected him. Just yikes.

So you agree that Tony using the alien scepter to upload his homicidal Ultron program is Tony’s responsibility, right? Because otherwise it would be like blaming Tony’s reckless actions (that he himself admits he was planning to do all along) on a young woman who gave him a 30-second dream he had that dissipated before he even left the bunker. Just yikes, right? Or blaming anyone else for Tony deciding to shoot unarmed people and fire missiles at people running away from him, or Tony trying to kill Bucky with his bare hands. All of that is Tony’s bad behavior and he’s responsible for it, right?

Sharon would have never had to sneak out the shield and wings if it weren't for T*ny and those damn accords so once again he's another villains origin story ajskajebsj

[steverfan]

steve just throws it all away for bucky but that isn’t him being a war criminal, that’s romance!

Please look up definitions before you use terms. Steve isn’t a war criminal, because “Civil War” was not an actual war. And Steve acted to save a person from being shot down by an illegal kill squad, which he would have done for anyone. Also to bring Bucky in safely if he’d been triggered into being the Winter Soldier. Also, Steve’s and Sam’s rejection of the Accords came before Bucky was even on the scene.

Sharon would have never had to sneak out the shield and wings if it weren't for T*ny and those damn accords so once again he's another villains origin story ajskajebsj

[steverfan]

Multiple countries: We don’t want American military coming onto our soil unannounced and wrecking things!

Tony: you’re right, we shouldn’t be allowed to do that.

Steve: Actually, I say we can.

Steve stans: wow such a brave hero!

You are aware that Tony said “we shouldn’t be allowed to do that” and then did exactly that, right? Tony violated the airspace of multiple countries, landed in Siberia with no permission from the U.N. or the local government. So you despise Tony Stark for being a hypocrite who goes wherever he wants and wrecks things, right?

By the way, the Avengers are not “American military,” Steve said that he wouldn’t sign anything that took away his right to choose (which is a reasonable position when the alternative is to be like Tony - sign and then violate the Accords multiple times behind people’s backs). Steve also said he was open to “oversight with safeguards,” which the Accords didn’t offer. Are you sure you watched the film?

Sharon would have never had to sneak out the shield and wings if it weren't for T*ny and those damn accords so once again he's another villains origin story ajskajebsj

[steverfan]

Your position is really amusing, because the things you’re complaining about apply more to Tony Stark than Team Cap. Let’s review:

government property LMFAO go watch civil war again. the accords were a REGISTRATION ACT put in place by 117 countries, not tony stark himself. he didn’t write them. he just signed them. the act itself was for accountability purposes. signing it was nothing more than putting out a PR fire that was started when WANDA accidentally killed a bunch of people in lagos. nobody is becoming “government property”, it was to register each hero. 

It sounds like you’ve never signed a contract, or even watched the MCU programs, so here’s the scoop: 1. You don’t sign a contract you don’t agree with. Period. So no one should expect any member of Team Cap to sign the Accords.

2. If you are a public superhero and you sign the Accords, you’ve endorsed the terms. So Tony is publicly on board with stripping people of their human rights. Tony privately also has no problem with the Raft. He saw the conditions and never said one word against them and never helped anyone who was a prisoner.

3. “Government property” is exactly what we see, the stripping of rights. In Civil War with the treatment of Team Cap; in the Marvel TV series that say you get snatched to the Raft and never return; in Ant Man & the Wasp with the Pyms being pursued because of the Accords even though they never signed them; and in Infinity War where Tony himself confirmed that Vision was implanted with a tracking device.

4. Registration of a particular class of people is not a good thing. Civil War itself mentioned internment, which involved the registration of Japanese Americans. You do understand how bad that was, right?

the documents were also subject to amending to make it more suitable for the avengers

No they weren’t. The Accords were never amended and there has never been a canon moment on screen or even in a prelude comic to suggest that Tony’s mention of amendments was anything more than a lie to get Steve to sign. If you have evidence otherwise, please present it. Also, you don’t sign a contract that strips you of your rights and then hope that an amendment gives them back. That’s plain stupid. No one even does that in real life. You wait until the contract is something you can accept, then you sign.

your beloved war criminal didn’t sign them just because of bucky and the other super soldiers.

Both Sam and Steve rejected the Accords before the bombing, so Bucky wasn’t even in the picture. You did watch the film, right?

but bucky & sam both signed the accords in exchange for their pardons.

So being extorted into signing a contract that strips you of your rights is proof it’s a good contract? Please explain this “logic.”

beyond this, if you wanna get nitty gritty about the “robot” situation, ultron was merely an AI program developed by tony and bruce that was literally software in a computer. it malfunctioned because of the presence of the scepter. the scepter was there because wanda straight out manipulated tony into taking it because she knew what it would do to him and the avengers (aka tear them apart, which was her goal). following that,

Yes, the homicidal Ultron program was in a computer. Also, it didn’t malfunction. All of Tony’s AIs (including EDITH) kill on command. Ultron was no different except he wanted Tony dead too. Tony said he couldn’t upload the program because he didn’t have the ability, so he shelved the project. He also said that the moment he saw the scepter in the bunker he wanted to use it to upload Ultron. That happened before Wanda and Pietro were even on the scene. The twins couldn’t have any knowledge of Tony’s computer programs. They only saw the scepter be used to enhance people. So Tony was always going to take the scepter - it’s the whole reason the team was at the bunker. So yes, Tony is fully responsible for using the scepter (behind the team’s backs) to upload his homicidal program. That was his plan, his choice to hide his actions because he “didn’t want to hear the man wasn’t meant to meddle medley.”  So bottom line, Ultron escaped to the Internet because Tony messed with things he didn’t understand, exactly as Thor said.

everything ultron did was a creation of itself. all stark did was provide a database and a voice and the ai function, which he’s created multiple prototypes of, including the one that’s used for Vision himself. same exact programming. lifts the hammer.

You’re right, Tony’s AIs are all killers. Look how EDITH fired a missile at a busload of children on command. Vision was designed by Helen Cho, so Vision was the exception. Also note that while Vision was able to lift the hammer, Tony made a rape joke and then was surprised when he himself couldn’t budge the thing.

but sure keep following old man’s steve basic and near non-existent understanding of the technological aspect of the whole situation. this is how u look rnanyway keep crying about cap 3 babe the rest of us love when ppl like u are this obsessed with our man, just goes to show he’s better than u & ur fave from beyond the grave 

Just how technological is it to say “hey I want to upload my untested global WMD program with this scepter I don’t know anything about”? Not at all. The rest of the team would have immediately understood it was a stupid idea. That’s the reason Tony hid what he was doing like a coward. He didn’t want to be told No.

Sharon would have never had to sneak out the shield and wings if it weren't for T*ny and those damn accords so once again he's another villains origin story ajskajebsj

[steverfan]

“Enhanced” is not equivalent to “doctor,” and that is the point. An inherent quality is one that is part of the person and cannot be removed, so It doesn’t matter whether the X-Men exist or not. Regulating a profession is not the same as regulating a group of people based on their inherent qualities.

I also do not think the Avengers “should’ve worked with what they’re given,” because it very much depends on what you’re given.

But I agree the discussion is at an end.

Thanks for your time and input.

if you are Team Iron Man you are not allowed to dislike Director Hayward. he’s an enforcer of the Sokovia Accords which is what Team Iron Man fought for in Civil War.

[steverfan]

Thank you for answering my question. Note that my response is grounded in being a U.S. citizen and reflecting the U.S. Constitution and Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

None of the scenarios you offer are a valid comparison to what the U.N. did to the enhanced, for the following reasons:

* Random "super US citizen" goes to a country and attracts some villain attention - Victim blaming and a violation of Good Samaritan laws. It's like saying the person who was attacked was "asking for it" and blaming a rescuer for not defusing a bomb. The bomber is responsible, not the person who attempted to defuse the bomb. Take the "super" out of your statement and note how different it sounds.

* "The countries listed are likely victims because they're on the list" - We have a partial list of signers. Nigeria is not on the list, so apparently that victim didn't think the Accords were a "win." Considering that the Accords are about control and not oversight, the use of a German squad to commit an illegal shoot-on-sight order, and Thaddeus Ross's villainous history with enhanced, a more likely reason for those countries to be on the list is that they are looking to control the enhanced.

* "Creating laws to control the enhanced is the right thing to do" - No evidence for the assumption and not a valid supposition, for reasons outlined later.

* "Steve and Tony dog neighborhood" - Invalid in the first sentences because it treats random acts as if they are equivalent to rescues. No Avenger randomly started "biting by accident." It acts as if a person failing to defuse a bomb is the same as a bomber detonating a bomb. They are not equivalent.

* "ACAB" - Not equivalent. The ACAB is a response to criminal actions by police.

As for the general position you present - that a majority of the U.N. decided enhanced are dangerous and therefore the appropriate response is to establish a set of rules specifically for enhanced that involves registration, restriction of movement, and control of inherent abilities - it is invalid for the following reasons:

1. The Avengers didn't murder or attempt to murder any civilians. The kill counts belong to the bombers, not the person trying to defuse the bomb.

2. The enhanced cause less harm than the unenhanced in the MCU. Ross himself proved that with his film at the compound. Less than 300 total people were killed in the incidents listed by Ross. By comparison, around 2,700 people were killed in the 9/11 attack alone. Also, the unenhanced in the MCU would have caused an astronomically greater death count if not for the Avengers. The unenhanced World Security Council fired a nuclear missile at New York, which would have killed tens or hundreds of thousands. The unenhanced Alexander Pierce would have killed millions in the first Insight attack, with many more planned. The unenhanced terrorist in Lagos would have released a bioweapon in a crowded marketplace, with hundreds up to millions killed depending on what kind of bioagent it was and whether it was contagious.

3. A group of people in power deciding something doesn't make it true. The U.S. government decided after Pearl Harbor that people of Japanese ancestry were dangerous. Does that mean that Japanese-Americans were dangerous? No. "Dangerous" is a biased label, reflecting a tendency or intention to harm. "Powerful" is more appropriate to describe the enhanced, as it is accurate and neutral. Swap in "powerful" for "dangerous" in your statements and note how different they sound.

4. Most importantly: Segregation and discrimination are immoral and, fortunately, illegal in most places. It is wrong to segregate and disciminate based on inherent qualities. All are equal before the law. None of these regulations are valid: * Green-eyed people must walk on the odd-numbered side of the street. * Japanese-Americans cannot own firearms. * Blacks cannot sit at the front of the bus. * Enhanced must wear trackers at all times. * People able to bench-press 200 pounds automatically have five years added to their sentences if convicted for assault.

Swap any of these inherent qualities in for "enhanced" in your statements and note how different they sound. To directly answer your question, any enhanced person has the same rights and responsibilities as any other person. They are held to the same regulations as any other person, not a separate set of rules because that is segregation and discrimination. Also, enforcement of those regulations is at an individual level, both of the person and the incident. Note that neither Wanda nor anyone else was ever brought up on charges of any kind.

"The right thing to do" for the U.N. or any goverment power (including the residents in your "neighborhood") is not to secretly decide that enhanced are a segregated class of humanity and secretly spend years crafting a document to register, regulate, control, and discriminate against them. The right thing to do is a transparent action that does not blindside or disenfranchise the people directly affected by that action. If the U.N. had concerns about the Avengers' actions, then the right thing to do was to open a dialogue after Sokovia and mutually craft a way of establishing the "oversight with safeguards" that Steve Rogers mentioned.

if you are Team Iron Man you are not allowed to dislike Director Hayward. he's an enforcer of the Sokovia Accords which is what Team Iron Man fought for in Civil War.

[steverfan]

No, you have yet to answer my question. It is a yes or no question. Whatever other action you take regarding the document is not relevant. At this present time, you have to make this decision: Give up the dog or don’t. Do you give up the dog? It sounds like the answer is yes. I want to confirm that answer before I reply.

One other question. Are you suggesting that enhanced people should be treated differently than unenhanced people? Again, the impression that I am getting is yes, but I do not want to misrepresent your position.

After I am sure of your positions on those two issues, I can respond to your questions and scenarios.

if you are Team Iron Man you are not allowed to dislike Director Hayward. he's an enforcer of the Sokovia Accords which is what Team Iron Man fought for in Civil War.

[steverfan]

Yes, for the purpose of my question they do. Because we are discussing the principle of “democracy dictates.” It’s not relevant to the principle whether it’s dogs or super soldiers.

Also, dog = inherent rights. I do not discriminate between unenhanced and enhanced. Nor do I think anyone should, because that would be invoking Godwin’s Law.

So please answer my question: Do you give up your dog or not?

if you are Team Iron Man you are not allowed to dislike Director Hayward. he's an enforcer of the Sokovia Accords which is what Team Iron Man fought for in Civil War.