The BEST argument you'll ever hear FOR the Sokovia Accords

[@Ramen5267]

You're a Wakandan, ofcourse you're gonna agree with the accords.

[@thatsjustmyopinion772]

LMFAO...

[@HighMojo]

The problem with the Sokovia Accords is that the final oversight and authority lies in the hands of General Ross, an American. Hence, it becomes an extension of the American government.

[@thatsjustmyopinion772]

Now That’s an interesting take! I’ll admit, I thought along similar lines at first. Given the US's influence within the UN, it's easy to assume the Accords might be a strategic move by the US to control the Avengers. But on closer thought, I think that view may be a bit misleading. The Sokovia Accords seem more likely a joint UN initiative rather than purely a US-driven agenda. It’s also plausible that the US faced pressure from the UN to show it wasn’t trying to use the Avengers to break international rules and violate their sovereignty. The UN must have interpreted it as an act of War. General Ross, as an American official, might have been chosen to deliver the message to the Avengers precisely to reflect the US's commitment to international cooperation and peace. So, the Accords lean more toward global oversight than an extension of American power. But it's still possible your point is correct. W🗿

[@Ob_1_Shinobi95]

@@HighMojo thank you. It's right there. In the movie. Even Infinity War Illustrates this in the scene, when the Fugitives arrive to the Avengers compound with a wounded Vision

[@MichaelAChristian1]

@@thatsjustmyopinion772 Further, they are exempting Stark and Banner and Wanda for their crimes openly. So it will just make the AVENGERS a more powerful monopoly. Tony Stark was hunting people down without legal authority and was the one who should have been arrested.

[@MusicLover-my6fo]

This reminds me of the fact that Spider-Man was on Team Iron Man during Civil War, but he wasn't briefed on the real situation, and he never signed the Sokovia Accords. Ross mentions that he saw the airport battle which means he had to have seen Spider-Man, and the fact that Ross never questioned Tony on how he came into play in the situation is something that always bothered me. And then in Spider-Man Homecoming, Peter just resumes his normal routine as if nothing happened. From a legal perspective, the events of Spider-Man Homecoming shouldn't be possible because Peter doesn't have any legal protection from the events of Civil War.

[@thatsjustmyopinion772]

Great observation! It’s so interesting how Spider-Man’s involvement in Civil War seemed to be this huge gray area-he’s recruited by Tony but somehow slips through all the Accords’ legal cracks. Ross noticing him but never questioning Tony about it is a big oversight, especially since Peter didn't officially sign the Accords or have any kind of legal protection afterward. Homecoming almost feels like a clean slate for Peter, despite everything that went down at the airport. It's definitely one of those moments where the legal implications got overlooked for story flow!

[@celestialnubian]

It wouldn't apply to just the Avengers. The Accords as they were written would require all "enhanced" persons to register and become subject to the coordinating agency.

[@tetraxis3011]

Do y’all not understand that Hydra is still infiltrated in the goverment? That’s why Cap didn’t want the accords. They make the avengers be under Hydra’s control

[@Ob_1_Shinobi95]

On my last point, Avengers again dont function as soldiers of America but earths mightiest heros. Try telling hammer weilding god and a sorcerer to sign a 300 paged document on oversight when there is an imminent cosmic threat looming in unseen territories and dimensions and you will see who is power hungry.

[@SupermanBlack1987]

As an American I very much appreciate this video. I'm wondering can you make a video talking about the comic book version of the story. I've had many discussions about both the movie and the comic and I've always disagreed with cap. The only difference was from the comic books. Tony is clearly in the wrong as well. But in the context of the movie Tony's actually correct. His actions on how he handles things is poor. But he still the one who's in the right. At least that's how I saw it which is why I would appreciate if you do a video on the comic series.

[@Mr.MasterOfTheMonsters]

"We are the only ones you can trust. To prove it, we will destroy this airport because of a disagreement" They can't even sit down and have a productive conversation as a group.

[@BiggestBirdonMars]

They already tried😂😂

[@noahmintie]

I agree. I understand team CA to an extent, but I've always felt that it's a little weird that the movie so clearly adopts that viewpoint. Cap's whole argument is "US Imperialism good" and it sets a concerning status quo for the MCU. Secret Invasion, the falcon show, and seemingly the next CA movie all have such... weird political commentary. The MCU always takes the most simple themes available because the point of the movies is good writing (sometimes), fun characters, and inventive scenes. Its just that when things swing political, blanket statements get a touch iffy because they're also reflected by real people who use that simplicity to their advantage.

[@Brandon-br7tc]

This situation is minimally relevant to real life politics. The Accords were about the Avengers. “Cap’s whole argument is ‘US imperative good’” Yeah not even remotely true….speaking of blanket statements and using “that simplicity to their advantage”….

[@juanpablorivadeneirajijon3024]

I am team Stark now

[@fortyquinn1301]

The final fight in the movie kinda proves your point about the arrogance about one's moral compass because Tony impulsively wanted to kill an 'innocent' victim that was directed to kill his parents

[@thatsjustmyopinion772]

I didn't even think of that up until I saw your comment. You are 100% correct. W🗿

[@fortyquinn1301]

@thatsjustmyopinion772 To further add to the argument they still need the accountability structure for situations like those. While I understand Steve's perspective of needing to act asap in times of distress the structure would ratify what to do and the management of the consequences that everyone would've agree to.

[@petermj1098]

@@fortyquinn1301​​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠Tony violated Ross and the Accords when he went to meet Steve and Bucky to arrest Zemo without permission. Tony only got away of violating the accords cause he is a boss as well. And literally every character violated the accords when Thanos and his minions came for the stones. Tony went space without Ross’s permission as well.

[@md.salamali8995]

I think you can't get it..... That's why his name is Captain America, not Captain World. His Whole self-righteousness makes him captain America. American Iodolium is all about white saviour mentality, but ironically, they have created that problem most of the time.

[@HangMrH]

As the devils advocate, ita better than pure colonization that the British did

[@leaDR356]

I know this is kinda irrelevant to this vid, but I'd say that the Civil War among Avengers already begun in Age of Ultron and it is not until the Tony Driveway scene in Endgame where they finally come to truce

[@thatsjustmyopinion772]

Absolutely. In many ways, Tony and Bruce are the ones ultimately responsible for everything that unfolds in Civil War, and it all traces back to the creation of Ultron.

[@rellikskuppin7417]

Thank GAHD for subtitles.

[@sardonically-inclined7645]

An excellently structured perspective

[@leaDR356]

People say that Stark bringing Peter was an irresponsible choice, which it was, I'd say that so was Captain. He threw a damn 1-2 tonne worth of shit on Peter, yes he judged that Peter would be able to, but from even his perspective, he still didn't knew about his spider sense, like what if Peter just got jumpscared and wasnt able to catch it in time? Tony would've been the most accountable, but the next in line would be cap himself.

[@thatsjustmyopinion772]

No lies spoken W comment.🗿

[@limdoo6473]

Tbf I don’t think he really knows how young Peter is. Also I don’t think you understand how strong Peter would have to be to match captain America’s strength (even if spider should be far stronger given the comics but that’s besides the point). I doubt he’d have dropped it if it was widow or Hawkeye in that spot.

[@leaDR356]

​@@limdoo64731) He pretty much hinted knowing that Peter was a kid 2) It is not about strength, it is about experience. If Steve knows that it is a kid, I'd say it's pretty irresponsive of him to drop like a 10 tonne hang on him, even if he could lift it, he could still be surprised and miss it. Ofc as audience we know cuz Pete has spider sense but Cap was also irresponsive here

[@Ob_1_Shinobi95]

Peter has been hit with punches that equal the strength and weight of that ton. A clear proof is on home coming, when he was trapped in the debris. The spider powers have not only given him strength and agility but durability. Meaning their threshold for hard landings and heavy objects may take time injuring or killing them. I'm sorry but this is a bad take

[@leaDR356]

I am not saying that Peter is weak, I am saying that Cap knew that Peter WAS a kid, did not know how strong he was, and yet he made him hold a couple tonnes If he thought he was a grown ass man, then sure, but Peter is a kid. Also, from Cap's POV, He doesn't even know about the spider sense, making the situation even worse ​@@Ob_1_Shinobi95

[@osvn318]

This is a GREAT post. You have a new follower.

[@josephdubois1385]

10 seconds and you have a golden intro

[@ianyoder2537]

Honestly I've never felt the same about reading X-men ever sense I realized the Sentinels were objectively a good idea. But if I may give an unapologetically capitalist perspective. A single monolithic superhero team having all the power isn't an authoritarian issue, it's a monopolistic issue. They don't need to be rained in by government imposed restrictions, they need a rival superhero team, or similar extra normal law enforcement/ disaster prevention agency, that could give them reason to stay in line and be better. And if that rival organization is government run and regulated or set up by a an expansionist power like china then so be it, just prove that you can save lives.

[@captnh2492]

I already sided with the gov before this video. I've even have thought up my own charachter, a superhero who works AS A SUPERHERO for the FBI. (not as his 'real" self, as his superhero persona.)

[@hasaunmiller]

Caps argument is equivalent to a rappers going the independent route bcuz the agenda of the industry can differ from your personal morals and principles so your not finna sell out just because especially when you got experience of a fucked up industry like Cap had even tho hydra was behind that but besides that, still a messed up industry/government morally speaking

[@jesswhycamarz]

Phenomenal video essay. I always disagreed with Cap. Im Black American and his refusal to agree to any kind of rules reminds me of the police. What is the problem with them being held to a high level of accountability if they’re always doing the right thing anyway? That’s a huge oversimplification but I don’t want to reply with an essay when it’s clear you think critically enough to get it 😂 New subscriber and looking forward to seeing your channel grow.

[@ultramanfan3757]

Look at how much harm they did fighting to save people

[@linnylinhorst5102]

An organization started in an America is going to naturally constitute more Americans. But despite they they routinely allow non Americans in I.e Thor, Wanda, black panther. The idea that they are an extension of American power is just that an idea

[@thatsjustmyopinion772]

I get where you’re coming from-naturally, an American-founded team is going to have more Americans. But there are some key points here that poke holes in the idea that the Avengers aren’t viewed as an extension of American power. For one, let’s look at when this debate in Civil War actually happens. It’s before Endgame, so T'Challa wasn't an Avenger at all at this point; as King of Wakanda, his role was separate and far from being tied to an American-based team. Black Panther’s mantle has always been a Wakandan legacy, not an Avengers affiliation. As for Thor and Wanda, sure-they’re exceptions, but barely enough to change the perception. Wanda only officially joins after Age of Ultron, and despite Thor being from Asgard, he’s had strong ties to SHIELD and has worked closely with American intelligence. Meanwhile, the rest of the team (Steve, Tony, Rhodey, Natasha, Sam, Clint, Bruce, Scott, etc.) are deeply rooted in American institutions-military, intelligence, and private industry. This is why many countries are cautious, seeing the Avengers as an American-aligned power that can act globally without accountability.

[@DerEchteBabo]

Even though I'm Team Iron man, I disagree, I think your argument hinges on the Avengers being basically the same as the US government, which would be likely in our world but the movies made it clear again and again that this is not the case, they actually operate individually and it was Caps experience with Shield, an US organization that made him distrustful of the government in the first place. He clearly wanted them to operate solely on their own, saying that organizations / governments (including the US which was the most visible proponent of the accords) are not able to take morals into consideration the way they could, which is a fair assessment since in these movies they are all virtuous people that chose the greater good again and again. So your point about the whole conflict being superficial stands but this underlines Caps view more. I don't buy the American morality stuff because I can't imagine any situation that they could face (judging by what they dealt with in the movies) where that would matter, I think the idea that individuals who are universally seen as virtuous and selfless being less corrupt and morally preferable to any organization is pretty universal and not bound to the US or its morality specifically.

[@thatsjustmyopinion772]

Thanks for your comment. First, while the Avengers are portrayed as operating independently, they are still tied to SHIELD (an American-led organization) for much of their early missions. In The Avengers (2012), their formation and resources were facilitated by SHIELD. Even after SHIELD's collapse in The Winter Soldier (2014), the Avengers continued to operate out of the Stark-funded Avengers compound on American soil. This inherently gives the team an association with American authority, even if they’re not officially an extension of the U.S. government. Second, Captain America's distrust of SHIELD stemmed from its infiltration by HYDRA, not from a general distrust of governments. His primary concern in The Winter Soldier was about authoritarianism and surveillance, not governance itself. Claiming this as the sole reason for opposing the Sokovia Accords oversimplifies his stance. The Accords represented international oversight, not just U.S. control, and Rogers’ rejection of them wasn’t purely based on his SHIELD experience but on his belief in individual freedom over institutional authority. Third, while Captain America and the Avengers are depicted as virtuous individuals, this is where the problem lies. Relying on personal virtue as a governance system is inherently flawed. The Sokovia Accords were designed to ensure accountability, particularly when “virtuous” individuals can still make catastrophic mistakes, as seen in Age of Ultron (the creation of Ultron led to Sokovia’s destruction) and Lagos (Civil War, when Wanda’s powers inadvertently caused civilian casualties). Captain America’s stance prioritizes unchecked individual judgment, but accountability requires a system of oversight-flawed as it may be. Lastly, the idea that individuals are inherently more virtuous than organizations ignores the fundamental issue: even the most selfless individuals have biases and blind spots. The Avengers may have chosen the "greater good" in most scenarios, but their actions still left nations to deal with the fallout, as seen in Zemo’s tragic backstory in Civil War. Organizations like the UN exist to provide a more balanced, multilateral perspective rather than relying on individuals who, no matter how noble, can’t foresee the full ramifications of their actions. In conclusion, the argument that the Avengers are somehow separate from American influence doesn’t hold up. Their formation, resources, and operations have been deeply tied to American infrastructure, and their autonomy has led to catastrophic mistakes that justify the call for oversight. While Captain America's distrust of organizations is understandable, his stance is flawed in a global context where accountability cannot rest solely on individual virtue.

[@Ob_1_Shinobi95]

Team Cap here, and I agree with you on that analysis.

[@justaverage5207]

As Uncle Ben once said, "With great power comes with great responsibility."

[@thatsjustmyopinion772]

"... and if you take on the responsibility, great power will come"

[@Imperfection_is_beautiful]

This is a great video. I definitely agree on a lot of your points, especially about freedom not being unchecked autonomy but involving responsibility and accountability. Here are my two cents (though I am always open to new insight): The Sokovia accords are most obviously flawed in their insistence on registering all powered individuals (I would suggest watching Agents of Shield if you haven't already, as it addresses this topic). I view this as problematic because even individuals who are just trying to live their lives are viewed as a threat by the accords, potentially leading to the corrupt governments posing a danger to these individuals. This poses the question of threat reduction before people can become threats- is that ethical? In real life, this could look like Argentina's government monitoring social media with AI to predict future crimes. And I understand that this is the UN but even that is corrupt, as I will talk about below. I do believe that the avengers need to be regulated, as they are taking action on a global scale, unlike many powered individuals. You can view them as a metaphor for a company, not under the control of the American government yet associated with it. The avengers have their own interests and they should not be able to exercise power over others unchecked- think Wanda Maximoff in Wandavision. I believe that something like the accords could be incredibly beneficial but not when those in power are regulated by other greedy people in power. Yes, having that many countries sign onto the accords is better than the alternative but these governs ultimately have their own corrupt interests and working together is often a competition for who's voice is louder (Think the Paris Peace Conference- this was an attempt at peace yet resulted in another war as the victors of WW1 gained more territory and power without putting in measures to truly maintain peace; simply punishing Germany out of anger.) The flaws of the accords were clearly demonstrated when they were going to incarcerate Bucky, someone innocent, who was also being controlled. Without people like Natasha, Bucky likely would have been killed despite not being the bomber of the UN conference. The accords must not simply hand over power to another greedy group of people who are not willing to listen to perpetrators or even victims (yes, T'challa had a say, but his anger was used to fuel the corrupt UN). To truly work, they must reform the justice system, to include the say of both the victims and perpetrators, under the regulation of fair mediators. (I would highly recommend the book 'Truth and Repair', although this is about small scale/individual crimes rather than ones of companies). I would love to trust the UN but in the film they proved to be corrupt, not considering individual lives. TLDR: the avengers should be regulated but by whom? The UN and governments are potentially corrupt in the Sokovia Accords, gaining more power for their greedy interests by controlling others, rather than fighting for peace and humanity. Oh, and marvel absolutely oversimplified this issue to being about freedom vs government and keeping the avengers together.

[@RealmOfFiction]

That is a valid and understandable points but the avengers fall under shield which is a non-government organization. Also they have non-american like widow, thor, etc.

[@thatsjustmyopinion772]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.. SHIELD was originally founded as an evolution of the Strategic Scientific Reserve (SSR), an American government agency during World War II. SHIELD was funded and overseen by the U.S. government, and after its re-legitimization in 2016, it operated as an independent agency within the Executive Branch of the U.S. government, under American oversight and a Senate Sub-Committee. While SHIELD worked closely with the UN and the World Security Council, which granted it some international jurisdiction, it was not independent of government influence. Its main headquarters, like the Triskelion in Washington D.C., and the U.S. funding made it a government-affiliated organization, not an NGO. Black Widow (Natasha Romanoff) is originally Russian and Thor is Asgardian. However, the key point to consider is not just their national origins but their active affiliations and alignment. Natasha Romanoff defected from Russia and became a U.S. citizen, working for SHIELD and the American government for many years. Her loyalty and service were to American interests, making her effectively an American operative by the time of the Avengers films. Natasha and Clint admitted during the first Avengers film to working together under the instructions of S.H.I.E.L.D on the Budapest Mission. Additionally, Thor's connection to SHIELD further reinforces his association with American influence. When Thor first arrived on Earth in Thor (2011), he was monitored and engaged by SHIELD, establishing an early relationship with the organization. He collaborated with them to retrieve Mjolnir and later worked alongside SHIELD in the fight against Loki and the Chitauri in The Avengers (2012). This cooperation illustrates that Thor's actions were coordinated with an American-led agency, further embedding him within a structure that, while global in mission, was heavily rooted in U.S. oversight and interests.

[@BiggestBirdonMars]

This isnt even an argument cuz the later movies and series showed cap was right not to give up their freedom cuz he knew that they would be controlled by people with agenda and when we saw shield being infiltrated by hydra and people outside america in places of power also controlled by hydra they ultimately put Themselves at the beck and call of hydra The avengers and Captain america wasnt about USA or any particular political bias Cap just knew that between the politicians who always had their own agenda and the avengers who where by no means perfect Hed rather trust the avengers not to abuse power

[@thatsjustmyopinion772]

The claim that Captain America was right to reject the Sokovia Accords because of Hydra’s infiltration of SHIELD ignores the fundamental difference between SHIELD and the UN. Yes, Hydra infiltrated SHIELD, but that doesn’t automatically mean that every organization in the world is as susceptible. The UN, which oversees the Accords, is a multinational body representing 193 nations. Its decisions are not controlled by a single government, making it far less likely to fall under the sway of one rogue entity like Hydra. This assumption that Hydra-or any singular group-could infiltrate and control such a diverse body is speculative and unfounded. Additionally, rejecting regulation entirely due to fear of corruption is not a practical solution. By this logic, all organizations, including the Avengers themselves, would be equally untrustworthy. After all, the Avengers had already proven they were capable of catastrophic mistakes, such as Tony Stark creating Ultron, which directly led to the Sokovia disaster. The Accords were an attempt to introduce oversight to prevent such unilateral decisions from causing harm on a global scale. The argument also suggests that Captain America’s distrust of politicians was justified because they always have their own agendas. However, the Avengers are not free from personal biases and agendas either. They’re individuals, each with their own emotions, conflicts, and perspectives. For example, Tony Stark’s actions often reflected his guilt and impulsive need to fix problems he created, while Wanda Maximoff’s personal trauma has sometimes led to devastating consequences (e.g., WandaVision). Trusting a group of superpowered individuals without any form of accountability is just as risky, if not more so, than trusting a multinational framework designed to hold them accountable. The idea that the Avengers were not about any particular political bias is also flawed. While the Avengers themselves may not be overtly political, their actions are inherently political because they operate on a global scale. They are equipped with advanced technology, have ties to the U.S. military (e.g., War Machine, a former Air Force officer), and are funded by Tony Stark, a billionaire with deep connections to the military-industrial complex. These optics alone make them appear as extensions of American power, regardless of their intent. This perception naturally raises concerns for other nations, especially when the Avengers operate unilaterally on foreign soil, as seen in Lagos and Sokovia. Lastly, the argument that Captain America would rather trust the Avengers not to abuse power oversimplifies the issue. The problem isn’t about trust-it’s about accountability. Even well-meaning individuals can make mistakes, especially when they wield immense power. The Sokovia Accords weren’t about stripping the Avengers of their freedom; they were about introducing a system of checks and balances to ensure that their actions align with international law and respect national sovereignty. Captain America’s refusal to engage with the Accords was a refusal to even consider compromise, which ultimately undermined the very ideals of cooperation and responsibility that the Avengers claim to uphold. In summary, rejecting the Accords because of fear of corruption or misplaced trust in the Avengers’ judgment ignores the real-world implications of unchecked power. The Accords weren’t perfect, but they were a step toward balancing heroism with accountability-a necessity in a world where the actions of a few can affect billions.

[@InfinityZwei]

Much of Captain America's position from a power standpoint seems built on Good Samaritan laws, which is interesting given how My Hero Academia does some exploring on the idea in a society that appears entirely devoid of them. However, when one looks into this viewpoint further, I fully concur that the Sokovia Accords did offer a vastly more rational (if imperfect) solution to The Avengers' operational jurisdiction. This is because of *scale*; Good Samaritan laws assume reasonable reactive intervention, while The Avengers have demonstrated proactive intervention with deadly, military-grade force. I'm not sure how international law would actually approach this, let alone any particular country including my own, but I can't think of any rational court system that wouldn't take a look at the difference in scale and judge The Avengers to be less a militia and more of a paramilitary force. Granted, the film is trying to take the context of SHIELD's infiltration by HYDRA into account for Captain America's point of view, but SHIELD was a party of national interest and not one representing the greater part of the civilized world, which is where these problems stem from. Furthermore, the damage that The Avengers became involved in might have benefited from cooperation with a wider military organization (the films do a pretty bad job of demonstrating organizational interdependence, which to be honest is not really in the context of general comic book storylines, but if this were happening in the real world you most definitely WOULD NOT want a paramilitary force operating without oversight or backup, as that has historically never ended well.)

[@pamonja4301]

good video

[@BiggestBirdonMars]

All of you in the comments completely misunderstood everything cap did and his entire mindset in that movie

[@Steve-yn3cs]

Finally. Someone has explained why I never liked Civil War's shallow portrayal of International security and how it was trying to romanticize Steve's position and making it seem like he was right.

[@jaymz010]

Americans will disagree with you because….America 😊 “Because when the President does it, it is not illegal” - Richard Nixon

[@BiggestBirdonMars]

That movie wasn't about america What did u people watch

[@Ob_1_Shinobi95]

Your critique is on America and not Steve Rogers and if you frame it that way i will agree because even though more than a 100 and odd countries signed the accord, the document was drafted and overseen by American government and its then general who is soon to be president, Thaddeus Ross. With tha said Acengers are not a military unit but super powered organisation whih was funded by Stark and formed through S.H.I.E.L.D by Fury. American government couldn't touch them and so they needed some reason to do it. Ross was virtue signalling on the Avengers and te man who funds it ( Stark) fell for it.

[@thatsjustmyopinion772]

The claim that the Sokovia Accords were overseen by the Americans is not accurate. The Accords were a United Nations initiative, representing a collective agreement among 117 countries to address the unchecked actions of the Avengers. While the U.S. played a role in their introduction, particularly through Secretary of State Thaddeus Ross, it is clear from the text and intent of the Accords that they were an international response, not a unilateral American project. Ross's role as a representative of the U.S. does not equate to U.S. oversight; rather, he acted as a messenger to convey the broader international consensus to the Avengers. In fact, if anything, the U.S. would be under immense pressure from the global community to demonstrate its commitment to world peace by supporting the Accords. With the Avengers being so closely tied to American soil, American ideals, and even the U.S. military-industrial complex, there would likely be significant international skepticism about whether they truly represent global interests. Signing the Sokovia Accords would serve as an act of goodwill and a way for the U.S. to alleviate fears that the Avengers are merely extensions of American power. Failing to sign the Accords could escalate political tensions and undermine the legitimacy of the Avengers' actions on the global stage. By endorsing the Accords, the U.S. avoids accusations of hegemony and reassures other nations that it values international cooperation and oversight. As for the Avengers' funding, while it is true that Stark Industries, a private entity, funds their operations, the optics are still troubling. The Stark name is deeply rooted in the military-industrial complex, with Tony Stark's family legacy tied to the creation and sale of advanced weaponry. Additionally, Stark has notable connections to U.S. intelligence through figures like Nick Fury and SHIELD, further entangling the Avengers in perceptions of American dominance. Though they are not an official military unit, the Avengers include three former U.S. military personnel: Steve Rogers (Captain America), a literal super-soldier created by the U.S. government; Sam Wilson (Falcon), a former pararescue officer; and James Rhodes (War Machine), a high-ranking officer in the U.S. Air Force. This composition reinforces the notion that the Avengers are closely tied to American power structures. Regardless of the Avengers' noble intentions, the global optics are undeniable. A team led and funded by an American billionaire, with strong U.S. military ties, and operating without international oversight, inevitably raises questions. To other nations, they might not look like "Earth's Mightiest Heroes" so much as an elite, American-centered task force acting unilaterally. This is precisely why the Sokovia Accords were introduced-to ensure transparency and accountability, mitigate fears of unchecked power, and uphold international law. The concern is not just theoretical; it is a legitimate political and diplomatic issue rooted in the realities of global governance.

[@voidsthetic]

4:15 Do you not consider the infiltration of an international committee by a Nazi organization to be evidence of how international governmental control can be misused? I'll be honest. If I lived in the MCU I would be very pro accords. But as a viewer of this fictional universe I am more privy to things like 1) the government deciding to nuke Manahattan or 2) Secretary Ross himself being the one to cause so much destruction in Harlem or 3) every single villain who takes the fight to another country with no intention in being careful around civilians when they act. A lot of the dialogue like "the safest hands are still our own" makes sense because of this As a film, Civil War mainly reflects Steve's and Tony's perspectives based on their own character arcs. When the questions is "Team Cap or Team Iron Man"- Steve does raise more effective points in comparison to Tony. Because the latter unfortunately seems to support the accords mainly due to emotional reasons and not because he is as a war profiteer who is actually aware of the importance of sovereignty. (Cue montage of every single bombing scene in the middle east they had, and the continued crossing of lines even after he signed.) The only anti-imperialist views on screen are raised by King T'Chaka and Thaddeus Ross. Ross is literally a US military general who toootally has the best interests of other countries in mind- and T'Chaka's death was later almost 'avenged' through breaking the same law he supported. So both these appearances don't exactly take center stage for an international perspective and aren't the main things that Steve even argues with in the movie So you could argue that the complete lack of this perspective being adequately presented in the movie was just so.... American 😂😂 (And the only character who ACTUALLY responded to the international perspective in some way was Natasha, who signed because she knew that the people had a good point in feeling like they couldn't trust the avengers anymore.)

[@ayandautimahmen9512]

This was beautifully done.

[@MusicLover-my6fo]

Honestly, if Nick Fury was in Civil War, he could've stopped the Sokovia Accord conflict before it even started. Nick Fury probably would've been the biggest supporter for Rogers' side since he knows first-hand that sometimes governments can't be trusted (Nuke scene from the first Avengers). And since we know that Fury still had the Skrulls in his pocket at this time, he could've just sent 177 of them to pose as the representatives and have them recall the Accords rendering the argument null and void.

[@thatsjustmyopinion772]

I partially agree. While Fury might lean toward supporting Captain America's stance, he’s ultimately someone who respects authority when it matters, as shown in the New York nuke incident, from the Avengers where he followed orders even under extreme pressure. If the UN insisted on the Accords, Fury would have had two options: comply or go rogue and disappear into hiding. Also, I think it would be completely contradictory for Fury to use the Skrulls to centralize UN power for himself. Fury has always been wary of concentrated power, especially in the hands of a single person or agency. His entire approach in Winter Soldier reveals his distrust of unchecked authority, as he ultimately dismantles HYDRA’s influence and reforms S.H.I.E.L.D. to prevent it from becoming a tool for control. Using Skrulls to influence the UN would go against his principles and undermine his credibility. He wouldn’t risk the type of manipulation that he’s actively fought against. So, if anything, Fury’s respect for authority, combined with his own skepticism about centralized power, would make him avoid interfering in such a heavy-handed way.

[@thomasbrand2650]

See, while I understand the concerns of the other nations, I who heartily believe their grievances fall into the "boo-fucking-hoo" category. If you don't like the way the Avengers operate, regulate that within your own borders. The Avengers are a group of individuals with their own individual rights and liberties. It's not too dissimilar from US military troops traveling or being stationed abroad. If a soldier is stationed in Germany, he is subject to German law. But Germany can't tell him what to do when he goes back to America.

[@josephbirrenkott7993]

Nah man, not all opinions are equal. Not all worldviews are equal. Yes - within reason - we should seek to understand and respect differences. But that goes both ways - something people all too often fail to comprehend. Newer isn't always better. Majority isn't always right. Some truths are not subjective. A brutally honest look at a lot of the lip service beliefs people claim can tear many of them apart with simple but extreme examples of just where such well-intentioned beliefs can lead and what they can "justify".

[@8thgod769]

Well I mean we kinda know Steve was a little wrong from ur thumbnail but honestly he’s more right than he is wrong

[@Bubblegob]

Remember when everyone thought a Captain America movie would be cringe and look like propaganda but then everyone loved the movies despite them being actual propaganda?

[@nikie6643]

this video 🔥

[@letinolorenzo8988]

Bro your actually talking nonsense now your bringing up wonda who has nothing to do with cap at that point she's been very busy and it's funny because your saying all this but the sov cords have nothing to do with cap personally. And if somone asks you you can have captain America as president or Iron man you would pick cap and your lying if you say you pick Tony stark. So let's cut the crap lol

[@thatsjustmyopinion772]

The argument that the Sokovia Accords and Wanda’s actions have nothing to do with Captain America’s personal philosophy is both misleading and oversimplified. While it's true that Cap wasn't directly involved in the events of WandaVision, his philosophy of personal freedom and the lack of oversight has direct consequences on the events that follow. Captain America's refusal to support the Sokovia Accords was rooted in his deep distrust of government and his commitment to individual liberty. He believed that the Avengers should operate independently, without interference from any governmental body. However, this idealistic approach, while noble, didn't account for the reality of unchecked power. The very lack of accountability that Cap championed contributed to the chaos that unfolded. Take, for example, the events in Civil War. During the Lagos incident, Wanda was not held accountable for her actions, which led to devastating consequences. Had there been a structure like the Sokovia Accords in place; something that Cap was opposed to, there might have been a system in place to prevent the kind of unchecked power that Wanda exhibited later on. As we saw in WandaVision, Wanda's lack of accountability led her to enslave an entire town and create a fabricated reality to serve her emotional needs. While Cap wasn't involved in this directly, his stance on freedom without oversight set a dangerous precedent. The philosophy of acting on individual liberty, without recognizing the consequences of those actions, eventually allowed Wanda’s unchecked power to spiral out of control. This brings us to the Sokovia Accords themselves. While it's true that Cap refused to sign them, believing they represented government overreach, this decision failed to account for the Avengers’ significant influence and the global damage their actions were causing. Captain America's decision to resist any form of oversight ultimately led to a fractured Avengers team and allowed for further destruction. The Accords were designed not to limit the Avengers, but to hold them accountable for their actions, ensuring that their immense power was not wielded recklessly. By rejecting this idea, Cap essentially embraced a philosophy where the Avengers could act as they wished, with little to no regard for the consequences. This ultimately created a divide within the team and worsened the situation. As for the claim that Cap would be the better choice as president over Tony Stark, while that may be an appealing sentiment, it's important to consider the reality of leadership. Captain America is driven by his moral compass and the desire to protect individual freedoms, which is commendable. However, his idealism often clashes with the complexities of real-world leadership. Tony Stark, on the other hand, is pragmatic and understands that leadership often involves making tough decisions and taking responsibility for mistakes. He recognized that the Avengers needed regulation and oversight, which was why he supported the Sokovia Accords. Tony’s willingness to confront problems head-on and address the consequences of the Avengers' actions made him a more responsible choice for leadership in global matters. Cap, while well-intentioned, often fails to see the broader picture. His refusal to acknowledge the necessity of structure and accountability ultimately puts people at risk. If we’re to consider who would make a better president, it would likely be Tony, given his ability to assess situations realistically and his willingness to make tough decisions, even when they are unpopular.

[@letinolorenzo8988]

@@thatsjustmyopinion772 would you do a live debate about this? I would to have a propa debate. Your clever with words but you clearly dont go to the root of the problem. The problem is humans not cap moral compass your basically saying that cap is wrong because society is blind to who controls them just like our government in real life. I am quessing you didnt listen to ZOLA explain this to captain and black widow in the winter soldier. Your just narrow minded or your being narrow minded on purpose to sway opinion like andrew tate does.

[@thatsjustmyopinion772]

To start, I want to point out that in your first comment, you dismissed everything I said in my video as ‘nonsense,’ but didn’t provide any real counterarguments or engage with the points I made. Instead of addressing my detailed breakdown or the nuances of my argument, you’ve been dismissive and haven’t actually challenged my stance. In the video, I clearly stated that I’m on the side of individual freedoms and not signing away my rights, but I also mentioned that I’m reasonable enough to understand the other side of the argument and to weigh the complexities involved. I presented both sides, and I tried to explain why oversight can be necessary to prevent abuse of power. However, you’ve failed to engage with those points or provide logical counterarguments. Rather than addressing the substance of my video, you’ve resorted to dismissive tactics, even comparing me to Andrew Tate. That’s a personal attack, and it only distracts from the real discussion. That's one of the reasons why I respectfully reject your request for a live debate. Another reason why I refuse is because I'd prefer to continue the conversation here. Written discourse allows us to take the time to present our ideas clearly and thoughtfully. A live debate can often devolve into emotional arguments or rhetorical strategies, and that’s not conducive to meaningful conversation. I’d rather focus on the substance of the argument rather than a performance. If you want to continue, I’m happy to engage in writing where we can both provide clear reasoning and thoughtful responses.

[@8thgod769]

Wb black panther?

[@thatsjustmyopinion772]

Technically speaking, Black Panther isn't an Avenger.

[@8thgod769]

@ have u ever watched earths mightiest heroes?? Have u ever looked up a avengers roster?? Have u ever seen most notable and famous avengers tier list??

[@thatsjustmyopinion772]

You realize we are talking about the MCU, right?

[@8thgod769]

@@thatsjustmyopinion772 fr? Oh my god I didn’t realize

[@letinolorenzo8988]

I get your point but your wrong infact your very wrong. I will debate anyone on this. Plus your failing to realise captain don't agree with avengers doing what ever he dont even let them use bad language while there in Russia. I can do this all day 😂

[@project.jericho]

I understand your argument and I see it's merits but, if you substitute American with White European; I'm onboard with Cap entirely.

[@Ob_1_Shinobi95]

I say this respectfully but your stance is completely flawed. Its easy to gloss over Tony Starks bad decision and deciding for the crew, America and the world that the planet needs a sheilr of armour. Only wrong thing Cap did was "lie by omission" about Bucky killing Starks parents.

[@the_supern0va238]

That's still pretty bad lmao. Lying by omission about a double homicide would land him in federal prison for a pretty damn long time and very likely fined.

[@beentheredonethat5908]

So you'd rather ROSS control the avengers and send them on missions against other nations? The American govermemt already trued to take tonys armor once. What do you think would bapoen if they got it and the abilities to control super heros? Your also wrong, if freaking aliens landed in ny and russia aoliders showed up to save us, and I'd be happy. These arent shows about wars with nations , its against other super beings only , or aliens. What you forget is captain America was already controlled and used by the American govermemt , it didnt work well, tgey wouldnwant to recreate more of him, use tonys armor , use vison to control the internet and amy technology around the world. If there were super heros , i wouldnt want any government to control them. Especially not my own. What if they didn't show up to save a people because our government didn't like them? What your not being honest about js why there was damage , because an evil deep state govermemt created wonda , created her brother , then was trying to steal vibranium. If this was real id want no govermemt power over it. Id want a smart and trust worthy leader in charge , andbid like for them to bebtrained and knkw where they shoukd be involved and where they shouldn't. Its tony thatbwas the problem. Tony was and akways will be the cause of 99 percent of the stuff that happens. He made ultron , he created the iron legand that was turned against everyone , he also created the system that causes the issues in the spider man movies , on top of creating the top weapons of the world. The avengers trued working for sheild , trued being hekd accountable by them, what happened? Turned out they were evil too, the accirds werent the answer , akthough they shpuld learn tk have more control , train better and together. The avengers is mkre then the original people and it gets better at what it does over time. What did the avengers do. Besides tony to start any of this?

[@thatsjustmyopinion772]

Ok.. now let me address all of your points made starting from the beginning: But before that, remember that the points I brought up are not from Steve's or you the audience's perspective, it's from the perspective of the Nations of the World 1. "So you'd rather Ross control the Avengers and send them on missions against other nations?" This is a misunderstanding of the Sokovia Accords. The Accords don't give Ross or the U.S. government unilateral control over the Avengers. They establish oversight through a multinational body under the United Nations, ensuring that decisions are made collaboratively by the global community rather than by any single government. Ross was the U.S. representative in this discussion, not the sole decision-maker. The intention of the Accords was to prevent exactly the kind of unilateral misuse of power you’re describing. Next 2. "The American government already tried to take Tony’s armor once. What do you think would happen if they got it and the ability to control superheroes?" You're absolutely right that governments, including the U.S., have tried to control or exploit technology and power for their own interests. But that's precisely why the Accords were designed as a global agreement, not an American one. The Accords aim to prevent any one country-whether it’s the U.S., Russia, or anyone else-from gaining unchecked control over the Avengers. Without the Accords, there's even less accountability, leaving the Avengers open to manipulation by individuals or specific governments. Next 3. "If freaking aliens landed in NY and Russian soldiers showed up to save us, I’d be happy. These aren’t shows about wars with nations; it’s against other super beings or aliens." It’s true that the Avengers mostly fight supervillains and extraterrestrial threats, but the concern from world governments isn’t about their heroism-it’s about the collateral damage and the lack of accountability. In Lagos, Sokovia, and other events, innocent lives were lost, and property was destroyed, often on foreign soil, without consultation or consent from the affected nations. Governments aren’t questioning if the Avengers are heroes; they’re questioning how their actions can be coordinated to prevent unnecessary harm. Next 4. "Captain America was already controlled and used by the American government, and it didn’t work well." This is a valid point and one of the reasons Steve Rogers distrusts government oversight. However, the UN isn’t the same as the U.S. government, nor is it Hydra-infested SHIELD (Emphasizing Hydra infiltrated SHIELD). The Accords are meant to establish a multinational framework to ensure that no single government can misuse the Avengers. Steve’s past experiences are valid concerns, but they don’t justify outright rejecting any form of accountability or oversight. 5. "If there were superheroes, I wouldn’t want any government to control them. Especially not my own." That’s exactly why the Accords are structured through the UN. They’re not about giving governments control over the Avengers but about ensuring they act with accountability and transparency. Without oversight, the Avengers are essentially a private militia with no checks on their power. Even heroes need a framework to guide their actions and protect civilians. 6. "What if they didn’t show up to save a people because our government didn’t like them?" That's a valid fear and it’s something the UN framework addresses. The Accords aim to ensure that missions are authorized based on global consensus, not on the political interests of one country. Without oversight, the Avengers could just as easily make arbitrary decisions about who they help, based on personal or political biases. 8. "Tony was the problem... he made Ultron, created the Iron Legion, caused the Spider-Man issues, and more." Tony Stark’s mistakes are undeniable, but that doesn’t negate the need for oversight. In fact, his actions highlight why some form of regulation is necessary. The Accords aren’t about blaming Tony alone; they’re about creating a framework to prevent such mistakes from happening again, like the one in Lagos 9. "The Avengers tried working for SHIELD, and that turned out to be evil too." Again, SHIELD’s corruption was an isolated issue tied to Hydra. It doesn’t mean every organization is inherently corrupt. The UN, while not perfect, has a track record of promoting international cooperation and could provide the neutral oversight needed to guide the Avengers responsibly. 10. "The Avengers should train better and learn control." This is a fair point, and it’s part of what the Sokovia Accords aim to address. By coordinating with the international community, the Avengers can improve their methods, reduce collateral damage, and gain public trust. The Accords are not about dismantling the Avengers-they’re about helping them operate more effectively and responsibly. The Sokovia Accords aren’t a perfect solution, but they are a necessary step toward accountability and transparency. The Avengers are heroes, but their actions have real-world consequences, and even heroes need oversight to ensure they act responsibly and ethically. The Accords aim to strike a balance between empowering the Avengers to save lives and ensuring that their actions don’t inadvertently cause more harm than good.

[@letinolorenzo8988]

Ask Peter Parker what he thinks he agreed with Tony stark and aunt may gets killed with in the next 2 hours of Peter Parker announcing he is spiderman. In comics obviously lol. Now you could ask me how that is Tony's fault but then I would ask why is wonda vision caps fault?and the film does adress the issue in the film before winter soldier the conversation between zola and cap. Brother you don't sound like you even know about the government. I do not mean basic stuff like 911.

[@thatsjustmyopinion772]

Thank you for your input, and I understand your perspective. I think there’s a slight misunderstanding in my argument. I’m not saying the Avengers are the same as the U.S. government, but I believe the Sokovia Accords reflect a necessary step toward accountability, something that Captain America overlooks in his quest for individual freedom. Yes, the Avengers act as independent heroes, but they're still part of a much larger international and political system, whether they like it or not. The idea that they operate outside of government oversight is unrealistic when their actions affect entire cities and global security. Captain America's experiences with SHIELD, and his distrust of government oversight, certainly shape his view, but it's important to remember that his perspective is heavily shaped by personal bias. His judgment about governments not being able to consider 'morals' is a valid critique in many cases, but the reality of the Avengers' power-without any system in place to keep them in check-becomes dangerous. After all, as much as we admire the Avengers' selflessness, they’re still human and capable of making mistakes. For instance, consider Wanda in WandaVision and the events in Doctor Strange, the lack of accountability for her actions after Lagos led to disastrous consequences. Captain America's firm stance on individual freedom and autonomy, without oversight, indirectly contributed to her unchecked actions, which caused suffering and loss of life. Also, just to add a personal note, I live in a dictatorship, so I have a firsthand understanding of how governments can abuse power. That’s why I argue for the balance of power and oversight, even with superheroes. It’s not about trusting the government blindly, but ensuring that those who wield power have checks and balances. Captain America's refusal to acknowledge this leads to real consequences, as we see in the later movies. In conclusion, Captain America's view is shaped by his past, but it’s important to understand that the need for oversight isn’t about limiting freedoms, it’s about preventing those freedoms from being abused or misused, as we saw in Wanda’s case

[@LuxersMultiverse2090]

I don't think he's right.

[@Shimulahmed100]

Another thing marvel killed is that after the snap everything went normal