I know it's not 2015 anymore, the Sokovia Accords is officially repealed in MCU but I still am not over this debate ok?

like what the fuck did team ironman expect? legally and politically, what did they realistically expect? did they actually believe that thing could've worked? on a UN level, HOW?

the Avengers were the only canon superheroes who existed in the entire universe at that time, the members were either americans (was nat a citizen? likely.), three of which were high-ranking current or former US servicemen, or hold some kind of refugee status (wanda) in america. others aren't even human and one of them was still technically american. so you are telling me you expect america to willingly and unreservedly relinquish the ownership and control it already had over the avengers?

even if they did, who'd call the shots? UNSC? a different committee that works just like UNSC? oh, right, UNSC is too unbalanced let's put it through the GA for a vote. by the time they convene a meeting, the world's already over 20 times.

circle back to the america problem. they held the monopoly in the superhero business, what would russia do? does anyone remember the arms race? oh, that's right, russia already had their own super soldiers for that exact reason. but they didn't tell anyone cus their super soldiers were insane and they had no control over them. how's france going to think? the UK? the EU?

if the avengers were communal, where were they supposed to be stationed? cus it'd be unfair to stay in the US all the time. it'd take longer for them to reach the other side of the globe and this american-centrism was precisely why the accords were proposed, wasn't it?

and what if there were more superpower people popped up around the world? let's say the UK had Union Jack, would he be an avengers too? would they train together? which country's laws and protocals would they follow? would he stick to Britain or is he going to save the day wearing his country's flag in fucking Ireland? would all of them have to wear symbols of their own country? because it'd be real funny if only the UK and the US had flag-wearing superheroes. if they all did, how can you realistically expect they'd be working for the common good instead of being agents of their own countries?

it's just some of the problems that simply can not be resolved if the UN (or any supra/international political body) were to enforce the Accords.

the Accords is in essence non-proliferation treaty, and that's another rabbit hole team ironman stupidly believed they could magically fix...

AVENGERS ENDGAME.

Tony : Do you trust me?

Steve : I do.

Am I the only one who is calling bullshit at this scene? Seriously?

Or perhaps Steve meant he trust Tony with avenging Earth??? That's an idea that I can actually believe, instead of the whole ' we are family. I trust you to hell and back. I will put my life in your hands.. yada... yada...' vibe the trailer has gone for.

All of the past incidents showed us that Steve doesn't trust Tony. To name a few

1. DC Intel breach. SHIELDRA fallout.

2. Ultron.

3. Accords.

4. The Bucky murdered your parents but I cant tell you....

5. Tony warning Steve about upcoming alien invasion only to be brushed off and NOT TRUSTED.

Honestly, there is no fucking trust between them. And they are selling us this scene. What the fuck? I am still bitter as hell about the whole backstabbing team to yell hallelujah at this fucking scene.

#WhatTheFuck

#TeamIronMan

#ProTonyStark

#AntiCap

#NotCaptainAmericaFriendly.

You seem like a hardcore Tony stan and very down to earth and very open minded too. True or false? #teamironman

Mostly true! But I would really say I’m team iron man, mostly bc it usually implies I’m anti team cap, which I definitely am not

Make an assumption about me and I’ll tell you if it’s true or false!

hello there, I hope you're having a beautiful day ! 💖 just a question, if you don't want to answer it that's fine but i was just wondering, why are stucky shippers considered "problematic" ? i'm not a stucky shipper myself but have nothing against this ship and haven't really seen any "problematic" stucky post so i was wondering why this ship has been criticized a lot lately. that was just out of curiosity but once again, don't answer this ask if you don't want to ! lots of love 💙

hey, no problem at all!💖personally speaking my problem with the ship started after the rise of cacw discourse. who was “teamironman”? who was “teamcap”? and for what reason? this divided the fandom and some shippers began to reach about scenes and attack characters, ships and mostly, and that’s the most “problematic” part, other shippers. in this context tony stark/stony stans were brutally harassed by stucky shippers (heavy things like anon hate, threats…) and even i that used to ship stucky ~as the chill multishipper that i am~ was so disgusted by this behavior that i have never seen replicated even by hardcore stony stans (or sharon carter/staron stans) that I have come to like less and less of the ship to the point of not ship it anymore.i’m not anti-stucky, but i don’t stan it either. that’s why some of my followers asked me to tag that post involving bucky meta: they didn’t want to be triggered and remember all that sh*t.

i hope i have clarified your doubts. 💋

groovycrusadeperson replied to your post“the main problem with a lot anti-tony stark fans is that they refuse...”

And then not even having the courtesy of tagging this shit as 'anti' anything so that the rest of us have to see your bullshit in the ca:cw and the Steve Rogers/Captain America tag and then harassing people who explicitly use the anti-tony tag and stay in their lane. The Tony fandom has been incredibly nasty about TeamCap, especially Steve (while inexplicably insisting you ship Stony no less) for a while now. Quit acting like you guys are the victims.

I wasn’t aware that there was another part of your response. I’m only talking about what I’ve seen and what I’ve experienced. From what I’ve seen, a lot of Steve and Bucky stans tend to act quite unpleasantly. I’m not saying that Tony stans don’t either because like I said in my last post, there’re always going to be nasty and aggressive fans in each fandoms. And I have to say this but a lot of Tony fans get aggressive because there are a whole lot of Steve and Bucky fans putting Tony down and just being plain rude. They go on the defense because a lot of the times, Steve and Bucky fans go on the offense. 

And don’t try to act like you guys don’t tag your anti bullshit as well because you really don’t. I went through the Tony Stark tag one time and I saw a few negative posts clearly tagged ‘Tony Stark’ and ‘Iron Man’ so we also have to see your bullshit in the ca:cw and Steve Rogers tag. 

It goes both ways here and the TeamCap fandom has been incredibly nasty about TeamIronMan, especially Tony. So you can’t come here and tell me that the Tony fandom is fucking shit up while The Steve fandom is practically doing the same thing. 

So yes, I’m going to point out that certain fandoms are acting rudely and out of hand because it’s stupid and so uncalled for. Like you’re pointing out how the Tony fandom is being rude and acting out of hand. I’m not saying that they’re not but you also have to take into account that it goes both ways. You can’t say that the Steve and Bucky fandom is completely innocent because no fandom ever is. 

So you guys quite acting like you’re the victims too. 

Sokovia Accords as Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: the political implications

In reality, NPT is a good thing. HOWEVER, Sokovia Accords isn't framed as an NPT, it's a Registration Act aimed at drafting (mostly) non-government actors. With this knowledge in mind, let's talk about what interpreting it as a NPT means.

NPT exists because the world collectively agree we don't want to blow up the planet in ten seconds in case WW 3 happens, and because nuclear powers and those who can never realistically develop nukes don't want those who could to have them. Some non-nuclear weapons states (NNWS) have criticised the inherent power inbalance (ie. super power competition) NPT enforces. In the MCU, the Avengers were the only canon superheroes who existed in the entire universe at that time, the members were either Americans (was Nat a citizen? likely.) - three of which were high-ranking current or former US servicemen- or hold some kind of refugee status (Wanda) in America. Others aren't even humans and one of them is still technically American (Vision). Then, America would, by the logic of a non-proliferation treaty, continue to hold the only nukes in the world because no where does a NTP say you surrender your nukes to the collective supervision and use of the UN. This power inbalance will have repurcussions and it goes against the American hegemony the Accords is trying to address. Or is it the plan all along? You can never be certain in politcs.

Futhermore, unlike the real NPT, America is the only country that is giving up power thus far. In exhange for this power dissemination, the US will want some sort of compansation, for instance, a permanant seat in the committee that makes decisions about whether and when to deploy the Acengers. This again grants them an unofficial but significant influence over the deployment of the weapons. Not to be a realist but if the US is on the committee, there is no way Russia and China aren't. And given the reality of international relations, there is no way it doesn't end up a political power move that could end disasterly. We will likely get another dysfunctional UN organ like the UNSC. [also can you imagine Captain America following Russia's orders? LMAO]

Not to mention a nuclear weapon has to be made by the state, a process that require years of dedication of a large amount of resouces, which means it will come out sooner or later. But look at the Avengers, only Steve and Nat techinically can be characterized as a nuclear weapon in this sense. Even if the state wishes to honor the treaty, they can't. There is no way a state can control individuals from gaining superpower through birth, alien matters, or just being smart, therefore there is no way the treaty can prevent the proliferation. At best it offers a guideline for states to follow should they discover they actually have nuclear weapon. which is kind of funny. In addition, there is no guarentee that other countries, if they have super powered individuals, will willingly surrender them to the UN. Russia canonly has other supersoldier which they hide from the public cus their super soldiers are insane and they have no control over them. Also, does anyone remember Wakanda? This brings me to my next point.

It has to be remineded that the Avengers are, in fact, not nuclear weapons, despite what Tony Stark so crudely referred to regarding Wanda. They are humans (most of them anyway) capable of making evaluations and desicions (again, most of them). The nuclear weapons aren't going to launch themselves when they get unhappy with, say, p*tin. Team Ironman likes to throw around the word 'accountability', but whose accountability? The Avengers have proven to not follow orders/protocols when it counts. What if they disobey orders? If Vision went rougue and ended up killing a Syrian citizen in Lebanon, who would take responsibility for it? The sitting memebers of the committee? Himself? What if the original mission mandate was wrong, Vision could've caused hundreds of deaths instead if he had listened? And do you really think there wouldn't be serious consequences just because there is a treaty that says the Avengers are common propoerty so it should be considered friendly fire?

Another crucial issue is that NPT is built on the promise that nuclear powers will not use nuclear weapons, but the Accords is basically trying to give everyone a chance to deploy WMD, which is in direct conflict with the purpose of NPT.

We are not even talking about non-state actors (SHIELD/HYDRA) and non-signatories.

To summerize, the Accords first and foremost isn't, and cannot be a NPT; even if seen as NPT it simply will not work because 1. America monolopy over the 'nuclear weapons' that exacerbates existing power inbalance, 2. Canon evidence that states won't adhere to the rules, 3. States have no control over the emergence of superpowered individuals, 4. No effective regulatory power and accountability mechanism.

Even in real life we can see countries breaking the treaties. Not saying we shouldn't try, because we should, but the situation with super powered people is different as stated above. The fundimental difference between the Accords and NPT is that NPT is a result of arms race among countries, and is a practical solution to avoid nuclear disater, the Accords is a result of a mix of governmental and individual and celestrial incidents, most of them are not within the power of human control or are the result of the corruption of the exact political body that's trying to regulate them now. The former is a security issue therefore can be resolved via politics & policy, the latter is not. The Accords as a NPT is a pipe dream with extremely undesirable consequences.

the more you think about it, the less sense it makes to support Sokovia Accords.

The World Security Council not only tried to nuke New York, they supported Project Insight before they knew it's Hydra, and even then they are against Hydra only because it's been historical associated with nazism, not Hydra's ideology or logic. (“not if it's your button.”)

SHIELD and the US government recruited Hydra/Nazi scientists to recreate the serum, trying to build their own supersoldier army. Which, again, is what Hydra is doing anyway. There's no fucking guarantee that the govt would picked out better people (see Walker) than Hydra and for 'better' purposes (see US track record).

Peggy Carter, Marvel's left wing progressive all around inspiration to a whole generation girl boss echoed Alexander Pierce, the big old evil nazi man. Nick Fury, The Black Bossman of MCU, was so proud of Project Insight before Steve gave him a reality check.

The government's action as well as ideology is literally no different from Hydra. Their rejection to Hydra is performative. They will recruit them anyway once it's supposedly destroyed (then comes the Thesues's boat question). I'd venture a guess that Hydra's recruitment process is basically “you'll do exactly what you're doing right now but with better pay.”

All the political institution in MCU is only titularly different from the most evil organization in recent human history, even if Sokovia Accords wasn't as radical and unconstitutional and an egregious violation to human rights, they never should've agreed to hand to oversight power to the UN or any existing institution.