Stark's side is presented without any real rebuttal. That's what makes this story so weak and simplistic. When Ross recaps the destructive events from the previous movies, no character ever makes the obvious counterpoint: without the Avengers, the loss of life would have been MUCH GREATER.
Sorry about your son, Charles Spencer, but is he worth the 14 innocent people who are still alive because the Avengers saved them?
Not only that, but the government was going to bomb New York in the Avengers...
share
I also thought Banner and Thor would object very strongly to being called weapons of mass destruction.
Unlike a nuclear bomb, they both have consciousness, agency and (to a degree) principles.
Admittedly, Ross thinks of Banner as a weapon, nothing more, but I'd like to see Ross say that to his face.
Or worse, to Thor's face.
Banner already knows what Ross thinks of him. What he has though is more of a condition which is probably why he sat the accords out.
As for Thor, he doesn't even have to be on Earth if he doesn't want to be. He's a god and wouldn't bend to their politics.
Not the Government, but the World Security Council was willing to bomb NY and the council had a HYDRA plant on that council. The WSC never wanted the Avengers to be created because they didn't know they would be able to control them.
shareThe thing about that though is without the Avengers Initiaitive, there would still be super powered beings out there that wouldn't be under anyone's control so the Avengers essentially just gave them a name.
shareTrue but it's one thing to fight lone, scattered superheroes here and there they could potentially fight one-at-a-time with preparation as the need arises. It's another to fight an organized team that will attack you with a concerted effort and is being led by one of your former enemies.
shareAhh, but the Sokovia Accords were not about ending the Avengers. So "without the Avengers" doesn't really apply here. The Accords were to keep the Avengers accountable in the case of a major screwup like what happened with Wanda in Lagos.
shareYou are correct that the Accords weren't about ending the Avengers; however, the *justification* for creating the Accords (and subjecting the Avengers to them) was the destruction that the Avengers caused. And there was never any kind of argument made that the overall losses were far smaller because of the Avengers' involvement. Never mind that there was also no mention that : 1) the losses would have been smaller; and 2) the number of lives saved would have remained the same if the Accords had been in place.
Instead, the argument, basically, was this: you caused damage, therefore you must be regulated. And there was no response to that. Without an opposing viewpoint, where's the real conflict?
"And there was never any kind of argument made that the overall losses were far smaller because of the Avengers' involvement."
Keep in mind this was 2016. Not only was Sokovia's death count the highest the Avengers had encountered, it was 100% the fault of the Avengers. You'd have to go all the way back to 2012 to make your argument that the losses were smaller because of the Avengers. That was the last time they had done any legitimate world saving.
Except that they stopped Ultron there, who was preparing to exterminate the human race.
With Avengers? Sokovia gone, six billion people survive.
Without Avengers? Sokovia gone, six billion people dead.
I think my point is made, yes?
Who was responsible for Ultron? That's my point :) Sokovia would still be there had the Avengers never existed.
You don't get credit for saving the world against a threat you created. Its a wash. That's why you have to go back to 2012 to find a "legitimate" world saving incident.
Keep in mind this was 2016. Not only was Sokovia's death count the highest the Avengers had encountered, it was 100% the fault of the Avengers. You'd have to go all the way back to 2012 to make your argument that the losses were smaller because of the Avengers. That was the last time they had done any legitimate world saving.
No. It's Tony's and Banner's fault. They created Ultron behind all the other Avengers' backs and they all had the right to be mad at Tony and Banner for it. So no. Sokovia is Tony's and Banner's fault since they were the only Avengers who had anything to do with Ultron. The how it should've ended of Civil War is really how it should've been. Change the name to the Tony Accords since the main thing everyone was angry at them for was Tony's fault. And Banner's but he was on that Planet that was run by Jeff Goldblum.
Splitting hairs.
shareI myself shook my head when he showed the video footage of the airships crashing in Winter Soldier. There was no other alternative there. Millions of people would've died. So I guess Ross and a bunch of other stupid people would rather Hydra have won and millions of people die. Idiots!
shareIt is a one sided argument: Cap felt the Avengers should be trusted in making decisions and HE proved with his actions in Civil War that they can not be. As soon as HIS friend was in trouble Cap put HIS priorities above everything else.
I am sorry but to use your comment : "I am sorry your son died in the big car crash in the tunnel but Captain America feels his friend is more important than your son and everyone else that died in that tunnel. Oh and by the way, there are people that think he should be trusted to make the right call on his own."