formasymphonic
Member
Nope, if you read my previous comments, you will see that I did in fact say both were right and wrong. Both are right but the way they go about it has huge flaws which the film tries to potray very well. but if you think of it in real world scenario, Tony's argument actually has 1% advantage over Cap because even real life military work with that.
By signing the accords, they can still avenge but with limitations and accountability. Those doesn't mean if Aliens invade, they will suddenly wait for the Government to approve before they move, they are super beings so they will go without the government anyways and they can hire lawyers to defend themselves later. But heres the flaw with Steve, he is a soldier, not a person with diplomatic skills. He sees it as punch your way in and out for what is right which isn't really wrong, it is just a bit one dimensional. Again both are right and wrong but I think Cap could do better to trust his colleagues than take the selfish moral high ground at great cost to his other friends
Really not following you at all - so they should sign the accords until such time that they need to disagree with them and then break the accords and hire lawyers?
This is better than simply saying I don't agree with the accords, so I won't sign them, because that is the "selfish moral high-ground"?
I think what Tosyn is saying here is that the world needs some assurance from the Avengers (an independent but seemingly American backed organisation), and that the Accords can give that to them in the current political turmoil.
Signing the accords and agreeing to work within them is a show of faith/political olive branch on the part of the Avengers. Like most political agreements. the subtleties of the Accords' exact terms can be negotiated over time (as acknowledged in the film - eg, having Wanda reinstated.). If a truly important incident occurs and the Avengers intervene prior to getting dispatch or approval it will be bad, but they can make their case for it after to defend their actions.
This could still cause trouble, but is better than refusing to agree with the request coming from 117 nations and then just doing what they do anyway. the end result on their part might be the same - but the politics around are more stable if they agree to work within the framework.
You are on better ground to plead your case if you are seen as agreeing to the rules and break them as a one-off rather than being seen as rogues/non-compliant who do their own thing and don't answer to anyone.