History Headscratchers / CaptainAmericaCivilWar

** It wasn't house arrest. It was unlawful internment. Tony did not do anything for Wanda's protection. Vision specifically said to Wanda that the reason she was being interned was NOT for her safety, it was because "Mr. Stark wants to avoid another incident." THAT is the reason Wanda was being interned. 3) Tony's crass remark about giving visas to "weapons of mass destruction" (which shows Tony shares exactly the same attitude as Thaddeus Ross, that enhanced people are things), does NOT give Tony the right to intern anyone, especially when no one was asking for Wanda to be handed over. Tony was still trying to get the others to sign their rights away, and handing Wanda over would have ended any possibility of that. So Tony didn't care about Wanda, he was just acting in his own interests. This is made further clear by the fact that he calls her a WMD, the same way Ross would, and he didn't care when he saw her in a straitjacket and shock collar at the Raft. He didn't protest the treatment at any time or do anything to help to free the prisoners or alert the world about how people were treated on the Raft.

*** Their tactics would raise some questions about whether those were really GSG-9. The shoot on sight order makes the police just attacking Bucky understandable. But throwing an explosive into that apartment? Let’s ignore the fact that its unlikely Bucky was the only person living in that building. If someone other than Steve had been there and it had gone off, they probably would have gotten hurt or worse. And, considering they still threw it in when Steve was there, it’s unlikely they checked if anyone was there. But they still kept shooting at Bucky when he was on the ground and heading into a civilian populated area. That shows a blatant disregard for civilian safety. I’ve heard a theory that the police that first showed up at the apartment was actually a HYDRA cell looking to recapture Bucky and, frankly, considering a HYDRA hit squad did impersonate Washington DC Metropolitan Police officers to ambush Fury in ''The Winter Soldier'', it wouldn’t surprise me.

** If anything, how Tony acted feels irrational when compared to how T'Challa acts in this same movie. T'Challa hunts Bucky across Europe for days on end with the intention of beating him to death because he thought Bucky had killed his father. He wasn't planning to arrest Bucky and let him have due process, he planned to straight out murder Bucky in cold blood. But the moment he learned that Bucky wasn't actually responsible, he stopped, saw the error of his ways, admitted he was wrong, and made amends (by sheltering Bucky and the other rogue Avengers in Wakanda). Hell, he even saved Zemo's life even though he knew he was the one who killed his dad. Tony, on the other hand, tried to murder Bucky even after acknowledging the fact that he knew Bucky wasn't culpable for Howard and Maria's deaths.
** Tony can be as upset as he likes, whether it was justified or not. He does not, however, get to murder people because he's upset (nor does Tony get to shoot an unarmed Sam because Tony is upset. Attacking people because you're upset is never okay). And this wasn't a crime of passion. Tony was stone-cold when he said "I don't care" that Bucky is innocent and kept attacking, ''after Bucky was battered, on the ground and posing no threat''. He didn't care that Bucky was innocent, he was going to kill Bucky anyway. Note that all Steve (and Natasha, since she was with him) knew up until this point was that HYDRA might have been involved with the Starks' deaths, and Zola tried to stall them leaving a bunker where a missile was headed by spinning a story about HYDRA influencing world events. So all he had was an unsubstantiated rumor from an unreliable source. That Steve chose not to pull that thread makes him human. Steve hid the truth from himself as well as Tony. It's certainly far less of a "betrayal" than Tony's deciding to use the scepter to create Ultron because Tony couldn't be bothered to have a town hall debate. In fact, [[FridgeHorror that may be why Steve never told Tony what he'd learned from Zola]], which is that he knew Tony wouldn't react well when the truth came out.
* It may be of interest of the OP that this point became an AscendedMeme at ''[[WebAnimation/HowItShouldHaveEnded How Captain America: Civil War should have ended]]''.

*** Tony doesn’t have the best track record of handling his emotions well when the people he cares about are injured. As the previous poster pointed out, he made an irrational decision in the heat of the moment. That doesn’t justify his actions, but they’re not meant to be seen are justified.

* The film starts with Zemo interrogating a HYDRA officer about the mission. He didn't ''guess'' that HYDRA killed them, he ''found out''. Black Widow released a lot of HYDRA secrets, and after the Sokovia battle, that's likely where Zemo would've gone looking for dirt.

** Tony can be as upset as he likes, whether it was justified or not. He does not, however, get to murder people because he's upset (nor does Tony get to shoot an unarmed Sam because Tony is upset. Attacking people because you're upset is never okay). And this wasn't a crime of passion. Tony was stone-cold when he said "I don't care" that Bucky is innocent and kept attacking, ''after Bucky was battered, on the ground and posing no threat''. He didn't care that Bucky was innocent, he was going to kill Bucky anyway. Note that all Steve (and Natasha, since she was with him) knew up until this point was that HYDRA might have been involved with the Starks' deaths, and Zola tried to stall them leaving a bunker where a missile was headed by spinning a story about HYDRA shaping history. So all he had was an unsubstantiated rumor from an unreliable source. That Steve chose not to pull that thread makes him human. Steve hid the truth from himself as well as Tony. It's certainly far less of a "betrayal" than Tony's deciding to use the scepter to create Ultron because Tony couldn't be bothered to have a town hall debate. In fact, [[FridgeHorror that may be why Steve never told Tony what he'd learned from Zola]], which is that he knew Tony wouldn't react well when the truth came out.

** Zemo would likely speak English because English tends to be the de facto lingua franca for any sort of international military operation. While its a stretch that he would speak it perfectly, its still possible.

** That's kind of the point of the Accords - it's ''not their decision.'' When a terrorist group is plotting to do something in a foreign country, you don't grab your guns and roll into that country to stop them. You go through legal channels. Some countries will plan to handle things internally, and others will accept outside help. But Steve doesn't get to decide that something is worth the Avengers waltzing in and blowing up a city block or two. The Avengers are basically a stateless force - yeah, they're based in America, but they clearly don't answer to the United States government. If Steve wants to get the authority to decide what is or isn't a situation the Avengers should respond to, then he should become part of the UN. But every country on the planet has the right to a reasonable expectation of sovereignty, to expect that some group of super-powered individuals who don't answer to anyone but themselves aren't going to show up and cause a ton of collateral damage. If someone wants to argue that there's a lot of bureaucracy - great, ''[[RealityEnsues that's how the world works.]]'' But let's be real - even if they were to sign the Accords, when they got word of a developing situation, they'd deploy as far as they could and get authorization en route. The Quinjet clearly takes time to get from the compound to wherever the destination is, and even if there was a delay, they could orbit outside the country's borders until they got authorization. If that takes a while, well, that's not the Avengers' decision. Is the system perfect? No, but that's how things are.

*** It's more understandable that you break out of the place ''that is keeping you from being charged with a war crime?'' Tony '''does''' explain his actions to Steve - "they don't grant visas to weapons of mass destruction!" Wanda's a contentious character to say the least, especially considering she joined the Avengers despite gladly working with HYDRA before, but she's also a 27 year old adult, despite Steve repeatedly referring to her as a kid. And considering that she caused an international incident (which can partially be blamed on Steve and Natasha for taking her on a live-fire mission when she clearly was still in training and couldn't control her powers) she should be well aware of the fact that her actions are going to have consequences. She stays in the compound, she doesn't get strung up in The Hague. She leaves, [[RealityEnsues she becomes an international fugitive with no papers or resources.]] Yes, it's a GildedCage, although she's not technically even under house arrest - Tony asked Vision to keep her there until he could douse the media fires. But that cage isn't just keeping Wanda, in - it's also keeping a lot of very angry diplomats and world leaders out. Tony is doing damage control, trying to keep the Avengers at least on the board, if limited in the ways they can move, and keeping them from making a bad situation worse. After all, if they keep sending Wanda on missions, something worse could happen.

-->'''Steve''': That's because he's already made up his mind.\\

[[folder:Rhodes status]]

### Sent military personnel into a friendly foreign nation (Which has an active extradition treaty with the US) to extract a fugitive without even trying to use standard channels, in violation of federal law and just about every known precept of diplomacy.

** I would say its a combination of Ross having friends in high places (which was how he got the revised super soldier serum in the first place I think), people in government thinking he was right about the Hulk being the property of the government or the threat Banner posed justified in the actions/crimes he committed, Ross blaming Blonsky for how out of control things got, Hydra strings being pulled (they might see him as being useful tool in the future for creating chaos or containing the Hulk), and good old dislike of Stark (who has been unpopular with the U.S. government since he started doing the Iron Man thing) and Banner to take their word seriously, and some cover up. I'm sure Ross getting in this position and escaping punishment despite everything he did is going to be used to add fuel to why Cap doesn't think governments should have full control of the superhero crowd.

** While the UN problem is a valid one, it is an unrealistic response, considering the world the UN finds itself in. It is a world where global extinction events occur over a matter of hours, not days. There is literally no time to debate, consider and weigh options. If the UN had presented the Accords as a talking point, seeking input from Steve and co, to find a way for rapid response with oversight in regards to enhanced threats, then maybe Steve would have been more receptive. The UN concerns are valid, but so are Steve's. It’s not just a matter of oversight, but options, using the real world as an example takes a different slant as the real world in this case in the MCU. Whereas stated extinction events occur over hours and immediate response is needed. Not debated endlessly, if the UN and government bodies where more trust worthy that Steve would be more receptive. But after things like 9/11, the Incident, and the fall of SHIELD, Steve refusing to sign is understandable. That is not to say he would not have. With Tony’s influence they could have changed it to be more practical. But presented heavy handed as it was, his refusal to sign is logical. Unfortunately events out of both he and Tony’s control prevented them from making a compromise that would have led to him signing. Collateral damage is unfortunate and terrible, Steve is not denying that. If a solution was presented that allowed him to protect civilians without compromising response time, he would have signed. He didn’t because he knows as a good soldier in certain situations hesitation leads to people like bin Laden and Thanos.

*** The collateral damage argument. The Avengers cause collateral damage? Well, so does every other organization in the world, and they would have managed it far less well than the Avengers did. That explosion in Lagos? Yeah, Wanda was in a Trolley situation. She accidentally killed 26 Wakanda humanitarian workers, but Crossbones would’ve killed a lot more people if the explosion happened on the ground, surrounded by even more civilians. If the Avengers hadn’t been there, a terrorist group would’ve gotten a bioweapon — an actual weapon of mass destruction — with potential casualties in the thousands at least. Those helicarriers in DC caused destruction, but not a whole lot considering three aircraft carriers fell out of the sky, and it was mostly limited to government property with minimal civilian casualties. If those helicarriers were allowed to continue, the casualties would’ve been in the millions. Ultron? Well, Ultron wrote himself into existence from the Mind Stone over the course of roughly an hour and went Skynet in about a minute, without Tony actually doing much. And considering the potential casualties of that one included all life on Earth, there being as few casualties as there were is frankly miraculous.
*** Then there's the government. What’s their track record for collateral damage? Well, in the invasion of New York City their first response was to try to ''nuke Manhattan'' while the battle was still undecided. What’s more, let's not forget who would supposedly have control of the Avengers' leash and the power to enlist any superhuman (and violate the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which banned involuntary servitude): bureaucrats and career politicians. It's only been less than two years since HYDRA got exposed. HYDRA was organization that not only controlled nearly the entirety of SHIELD, but had also infiltrated the highest positions of power and governments worldwide for decades. Do you really think they got them all, Secretary Ross? And now you want to hand that kind of power over to the same corrupt, compromised politicians? And that’s not even mentioning the various non-Hydra secret societies and conspiracies out there, like the Hand (since ''Daredevil'' and ''Iron Fist'' established the Hand as having influence on New York City officials), or that one time the Vice-President worked with Aldrich Killian to try to assassinate the President in ''Iron Man 3''.

** Most importantly, Tony didn't see the situation escalating like it did. For all Tony knew, Steve and the Falcon ran off with Bucky Barnes. If cooler heads prevail, they might even avoid a fight altogether. But in case it does, Peter's role is clear: Only engage the guy guaranteed to go easy him, from a distance if you can. He didn't know Cap was assembling a team to go on a Mission he felt was vitally important. Now all of a sudden Cap has a force twice its original size and more than tripled in strength, and they're not backing down.

** The thing is as shown in ''Series/AgentsOfSHIELD'' time constraints may be a factor. When Hive threatened global decimation the team did not have time to assemble a case. Present the case to the proper authorities. Sort of the bureaucratic red tape and sign the proper forms. Have meetings explaining what had occurred and give a report on why they had to act. When a rules stickler and [[BotheringByTheBook career military soldier like General Talbot]] helps your team commit treason in order to save the world, then time is factor. For Cap, time was a factor. Unknown hostiles, lead by a dangerous [[OneManArmy super human who was a member]] of a [[ANaziByAnyOtherName fascist terrorist group.]] Does Cap have time to try to explain to the proper authorities, meet the right people. Answer the right questions and sign the right papers. Also after ''Film/CaptainAmericaTheWinterSoldier'' the Avengers may make it a habit of trusting their own instincts. In the end the problem with the accords, are time constraints, and lack of trust in governments that have a history of what is convenient over what is right.
** That's kind of the point of the Accords - it's ''not their decision.'' When a terrorist group is plotting to do something in a foreign country, you don't grab your guns and roll into that country to stop them. You go through legal channels. Some countries will plan to handle things internally, and others will accept outside help. But Steve doesn't get to decide that something is worth the Avengers waltzing in and blowing up a city block or two. The Avengers are basically a stateless force - yeah, they're based in America, but they clearly don't answer to the American government. If Steve wants to get the authority to decide what is or isn't a situation the Avengers should respond to, then he should become part of the UN. But every country on the planet has the right to a reasonable expectation of sovereignty, to expect that some group of super-powered individuals who don't answer to anyone but themselves aren't going to show up and cause a ton of collateral damage. If someone wants to argue that there's a lot of bureaucracy - great, ''[[RealityEnsues that's how the world works.]]'' But let's be real - even if they were to sign the Accords, when they got word of a developing situation, they'd deploy as far as they could and get authorization en route. The Quinjet clearly takes time to get from the compound to wherever the destination is, and even if there was a delay, they could orbit outside the country's borders until they got authorization. If that takes a while, well, that's not the Avengers' decision. Is the system perfect? No, but that's how things are.

** However as seen in ''Film/AvengersInfinityWar'' the theory that the Accords were created for checks and balances is easily debunked when the powers that be, decide to try to enforce their control instead of thinking of the bigger picture. As seen the Avengers have a good idea what their mission is, protect and defend. While the powers that be who define the accords are more concerned with control, over everything else. Over right or wrong, even with the World being at stake. Ross it's face and enforcer shows that the Accords are not for supervision but for control. The Avengers were able to put aside their previous conflict for the greater good. The Accords could not put aside their power games despite lives at stake. Which furthers Caps point. When it boils down to it, it’s not about politics or control, its about saving lives. To Steve the Avengers are about seeing something wrong, something that needs to be stopped in order to protect lives and acting on it. If the Accords could be fashioned more as a co-operative guide that enabled the UN to work with the Avengers, Cap could respect that. But he saw it for what it was, a leash held by the powerful who would use politics to determine wrong from right as long as it did not cause political embarrassment or problems. No matter the innocent lives cost.
** Ross might be a dick, but he is just the 'face and enforcer' of the Accords in the ''US'' (where most of the stories take place). Like Rhodey said, all of the United Nations put their signature under the accords. We do not know how they do enforce this law in their respective countries. And like was said before, the Avengers simply do not have the right to just disrespect foreign borders and law. That said, the best solution (like so many times) probably lies somewhere in the middle. I'm actually fairly sure that at the end of all this, the Accords won't be abolished completely, but amended.
** The thing is the Accords were never made about foreign borders it was always about control. It was always about control of the Avengers. If they were about compromise, about working within reason and respect of Sovereignty of other countries then Steve could have worked with that. Hell, the Avengers worked for years stopping massive threats to innocent lives and the UN didn't interfere until public outcry. Even then they didn't offer a real compromise or a working idea. They offered to tell the Avengers what is and what is not defined of a threat. If something is wrong, something so great a threat immediate and swift action needs to be taken. An out of context problem like HYDRA or Thanos. That's when the Avengers act. The Avengers operate only when needed, when its right to. Steve saw the Accords as a measure of control not a measure of accountability. Also Ross was assigned by agreement of the UN, as the watchdog of the accords. Not a diplomat, not a lawyer. A man known for using excessive force to handle superhuamn problems. Then Steve and his group wariness about its message is warranted. As pointed out before, its about those who actually have power in the UN who decide what is right or wrong as long as not politically problematic. Against a soldier who sees something coming that is very wrong and acting on it. Also I don't think the accords are long for the World after Infinity War as the global community would most likely prefer that sort of global catastrophe be stopped post haste from now on. Instead of debated and defined ad nauseam, delaying action as Ross proved would happen.
** But once again, Ross is only one cog in the machine. Take Talbot for example, he was acting and explaining the necessity of the Accords far more reasonably. And 'control' in and on itself is not necessairly a bad thing either. And what is so bad about acting on public outcry? Tony Stark created Ultron, Wanda caused a severe amount of death and property damage (even BEFORE the accident with Rumlow, see what she did earlier with Hulk), just on top of my head. For the record: I'm not even talking from my own point of view here, I'm talking from the in-universe point of people simply object to a certain, powerful group of people acting without supervision. That is a legit complaint. Cap doesn't just get to stand up and say "''I'' know best what's right, not any goverment!" That's not how this works. Are there problems on both sides? Absolutely. I'm just objecting towards the standpoint that the Accords are by definition a bad thing.
** The main problem with the Accords, and why it's considered by some a bad thing, is not the UN aspect but the aspect of those in power, corrupt or otherwise, defining what is and what is not something that needs to be Avengers worthy. Let's be honest, corruption and agendas are a daily thing in the geopolitical landscape. Add to the fact the US was able to get General "use heavy ordnance on american soil, damn the collateral threat" Ross to be its main watchdog is a symptom of the problem. As for In-universe the Avengers operated for years globally without problems. Then collateral damage happened, suddenly everybody is concerned about borders and sovereignty. Which would be fine except it comes across more about saving face and definitely opportunistic. Do they consult the Avengers before writing them up? Do they give them options or explain necessity of the Accords? No they send their watchdog, a man as subtle as a hammer to tell them sign or retire. They tell the Avengers, Steve to trust a system he knows can be corrupted or brought off to make the right moral choice over the more convenient choice. They use words like property damage and accountability but we know thanks to Thanos the cost of when the Avengers don't act. What kind of property damage or collatoral damage Crossbones could have caused with that virus on the open market? What kind of damage Project Oversight had gone unchallenged and Steve went through all the red tape to get authority to take them on? The main problem with the Accords is not only trusting the UN, or those with power in the UN to make the right choice. But in a world where extinction-level threats happen on the fly, the Avengers are duty bound to respond. Collateral damage like property and death, are a cost of the reality of their work. A few versus the many is the hard math at play. If the UN could have given Steve a viable option to prevent that while allowing rapid response, he would have taken it. They didn't, and that is why he and the others chose what they did.

** Actually he was not willing to sign the first version of the Accords, after being the only Avenger seen reading them and having reservations based on that. He was willing to sign on AFTER Tony promised that they could modify it as [[HopeSpot needed meaning something that was reasonable and could work,]] after they brought Bucky in. Until he found out that Wanda was under house arrest.

** It was a deal breaker because it highlighted an issue. Tony once again made a unilateral decision for his friends and team mates. Like ULTRON with disastrous results and like the accords when he helped draft them and presented them to the team without them having a voice in their creation. He just had a team meeting, presented the accords and let a stranger tell them to sign or retire. To Steve a team mate went behind his back to decide for the team what compromises they should make. Tony locking down Wanda would have been another example of that, Tony deciding what is best for the Avengers and that lead to their impasse. Also Wanda did not cause a huge explosion, Wanda prevented a huge explosion taking out many lives leading to the death of a few. Steve saw a member of his team, make the right choice out of necessity and be hidden away for the comfort of those in power and others. Tony did it to keep her safe, yes. But also to appease the public and the UN as well. To Steve that was a compromise and his reaction was someone who knew that once you start doing that then other compromises, moral and otherwise would be expected as well.

*** This in general. 117 countries signed the Accords. That's a lot of countries. And the more people involved in this “oversight committee”, the slower things will happen. Bureaucracy moves at a glacial pace. When there’s 117 countries involved, it’ll make continental drift look fast. In every instance where the Avengers were deployed, they needed to respond to an immediate threat within hours or minutes. The UN typically takes ''months'', sometimes ''years'', to get to a resolution and send forces, and even the “rapid deployment” UN troops take several days to get approved. By the time the Avengers would be given permission to go into Sokovia and beat Ultron, he’d already have killed all life on Earth.\\
Furthermore, what about the "have-nots"? 117 countries may sound like a lot, and it is, but the UN is composed of '''''193''''' countries, and there are 54 countries that are not part of the UN. There are more countries who didn’t sign the Accords (130) than did (117). That’s gonna cause problems later on.
*** Also, countries deny U.N. forces entry every day. And the U.N. itself often declines to take action, even when they know thousands of people are dying. Even when they know ''genocide'' is happening. Just loook at the U.N. turning a blind eye to the genocides in Rwanda, or their inaction on the persecution of Muslims in China. Not to mention delaying the Avengers would doom the world. No one knew Sokovia was a world crisis until after the city was flying. With the Accords in place, the Avengers would have been too late.

** This is even worse because ''Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.'' proves that the list is not safe in "Emancipation", the same episode that introduces the concept of the Sokovia Accords' registration. In the episode the Watchdogs, [[FantasticRacism who hate all powered people and want to kill them]], mention that they have an informant within the ATCU that got them a name of an Inhuman from this list and they intend to kill this person as an example. Granted this was a deliberate leak by Hive but the fact that the list could be so easily spilled means that will do nothing to protected the enhanced.

*** While true a Senator later in the season came into power who did leak the list to the Watchdogs. Meaning the above example applies, the list can be accessed by the wrong people to hunt down gifted people. Even worse people in power, not even deep government access but Senators. Can access the list and use it. If people at that level can access it, smart people, hackers, or anyone skilled at data mining can access it as well.

** Watch the film ''Film/EyeInTheSky'', which came out just after this and almost seems like an answer to the question of what the accords would entail. A mission to capture a terrorist for trial suddenly has to become an impromptu assassination when she is seen putting a suicide vest on. Because of all the channels they have to go through to make sure they're covered legally they end up killing a young girl in the collateral damage from the missile strike. Had they acted as soon as they saw the terrorist putting on the vest, the girl would have survived.

** In ''The Winter Soldier'', Arnim Zola implies that the reason Howard and Maria were killed is because they know about HYDRA's existence within S.H.I.E.L.D. Maybe the super-soldier blood bags that Howard was transporting is HYDRA's second attempt to create their own SuperSoldier just like Red Skull decades ago. Howard happened to found out about it, and by having no idea of how far Hydra's influence goes (remember that in the present, during ''The Avengers'', even Tony's high-tech hacking device cannot tell him about Hydra or who is affiliated with it), he cannot trust anyone to do the job so he decides to take care of the super soldier blood bags himself in secret. Alas, HYDRA found out about it and sent The Winter Soldier to finish him and his wife off...
** That about sums it up. Except it's more likely that Stark himself, after a lifetime's work, had finally recreated the Super Serum, but couldn't trust anyone else to transport it to what he thought was his one reliable connection at the Pentagon. Trouble is, his connection was actually Hydra in deep cover. To preserve that cover, the Soldier was sent in to steal the serum before it could be delivered. Since nobody else knew of the serum, the Hydra agent at the Pentagon preserves his cover, and Hydra gets five new super soldiers.

* I understand if Agents of Shield didn't use them since the Russos have said they haven't kept up with the show but if Hydra had five more Winter Soldiers since early 90s, why have they not been brought out? Why didn't Pierce use them since they were apparently better than Bucky or Strucker use them against the Avengers. I understand if hey could not be controlled but from what Bucky mentioned, they were used on at least 1 mission and the flashback did show them brought back if they got out of control. I would accept it in Agents of Shield, they say that it was a cell of Hydra who was exclusively using them, and was only being lent Bucky (which the others did not not know about) and the other Hydra cells had trouble trying to find year base. I am just wondering is all.
** I think you pretty much answered your own question. The Death Squad could only be controlled so far as to point them at a target and say kill everything. In short, they are the sledgehammer to the Winter Soldiers scalpel. Plus Pierce is an old fashioned guy who prefers to be in control and may have preferred the Winter Soldier to a Death Squad he's not so sure about. Apart from that yes I would say it's a issue of compartmentalization. For all the Russian Commanders loyalty to HYDRA in death he IS in hiding in Cleveland. He was probably demoralized by the loss of Piece and the Winter Soldier and too scared to find other HYDRA cells. So the other cells didn't have access to the info, access codes or control codes for the Soldiers. Plus the cells were not above hiding important shit from each other. Remember Whitehall's lifelong attempts to understand Inhumans while Malick and others knew the truth and kept it from him because they didn't like him and didn't believe in his methods? I wouldn't be surprised if the Soldiers where hidden to keep other HYDRA members using them in a coup of HYDRA itself.
** I got the impression they were never used. Since they were volunteers and Hydra's top guys before, they didn't need brainwashing to follow Hydra's goals, but the serum enhanced their violent and destructive tendencies, and they became monsters - hence Bucky having to protect his handler in there with them. It would be too much trouble and destroying the skills they were chosen for to do the whole Bucky memory wipe and trigger implants treatment. They froze them rather than destroy them in case they could use them later - maybe with improvements from Whitehall's experiments with the Faustus machine on inhumans, which they either didn't know about (hydra definitely works in isolated cells), or just doesn't work on super soldiers without the deep conditioning and memory wipes Bucky had. I don't think they were brainwashed at all - if they had triggers, Karpov would have used them to shut the other soldiers down rather than ordering Bucky to get him out of there.

* When Zemo found him he seemed to be living in an apartment, was he retired or something? Why wasn't he working with HYDRA right now, if he was not arrested and in retirement why didn't Strucker have him brought back since they would need the help against the Avengers. I am just wondering since I don't think they explain it.
** It's possible that Strucker was part of a different cell of HYDRA and had no means to contact Karpov. Given how Karpov acted when Zemo knocked on his door ('no police'), I'd guess that he was on the run after Project Insight was foiled and SHIELD's secrets were made public. If Strucker did know about him, he likely didn't know about the other Winter Soldiers or he'd have called Karpov in just for the opportunity to set those five loose against the Avengers. So it was likely either Strucker didn't know about Karpov/didn't know how to contact him, or he did know but didn't think Karpov could contribute anything useful.

** I think it was a combination of things. Tony doesn't handle trauma well and is known to act impulsively. In ''Iron Man 3'', when Happy was nearly killed, Tony challenged a known terrorist on the news and gave him his home address. Steve may or may not have known if Bucky killed Howard and Maria, but he might have feared he did given how Bucky was sent to kill Fury. Steve probably never dug too deep to see if Bucky killed Howard or not, but he could have thought telling Tony could have lead him to looking more closely at the released HYDRA SHIELD files to find the answer. If Tony did find out Bucky was responsible, Steve feared Tony would go after Bucky to try to kill him. Steve made a shortsighted call call. He might have had the best intentions in mind, but went about it the wrong way. It is easy for friends to withhold bad news thinking it is for their friend's best interest, but failing to realize they could cause more harm by keeping information.
** That's my take as well. Zemo's plan was completely hinged on Steve not telling Tony about Howard and Maria's murder, or even him telling them about Bucky and asking ALL of the Avengers (not just Sam) to help. IF he did and IF that lead to further digging into those encrypted files, then Zemo's plan was toast as the Avengers would have found the HYDRA agent, found the red trigger book and maybe even found Bucky and got him help before things went to heck in [=AoU=].

** I interpreted that scene as her forcing them to. All of them go dead eyed, drop everything, and walk out calmly. And whilie ''Series/WandaVision'' shows that Wanda can control minds on a mass scale, there's no way they'd react that calmly to a telepathic message warning them of their destruction.

** It was the wrong situation to be using her telepathy. On the ship in ''Age of Ultron'', Wanda was using stealth to distract the minds of the Avengers, and had back-up from Pietro when Hawkeye resisted. Back in Sokovia when she did her part to evacuate the people, Wanda wasn't under any threat at that moment. At the airport battle, she's got six individuals to help contend with, all with different abilities and fighting styles who would probably resist mind control. Her telekinesis requires intense concentration anyway, as shown, Rhodey broke that concentration when she tried to stop the rubble falling over the entrance to the hangar.
** We already know they wouldn't "probably resist" her mind control. She already used it against some of them. On Klaue's ship she put ''Thor'' and all the others (except Hawkeye) out of commission without really having to concentrate; literally just a movement of her hand for each of them. Just one example, during the airport battle, where she could've used her telepathy but didn't is when Hawkeye distracted Tony so she could attack him. But instead of hypnotizing him, she went for telekinesis (it actually bears questioning why she didn't just grab Tony himself and slammed him around like a rag doll instead of raining cars on him, but that's a different matter entirely). As for War Machine's attack, that's an odd example, what she's doing at that exact moment does require continuous concentration because it was a continuous task; she doesn't need that much concentration for grabbing someone and throwing them away, like she did with Black Widow. That one she did outright nonchalantly, before chewing out Clint for going easy.
** Also Wanda is trying to maintain her HeelFaceTurn after the events in Sokovia, including the fact that her MindRape of Tony [[NiceJobBreakingItHero led to him creating Ultron]] and indirectly to her brother dying. She probably hasn't been using telepathy for fear of WeAreNotGoingThroughThatAgain with the other Avengers, given she easily tore them apart in ''Age of Ultron'' and nearly got her home country destroyed as a result. Plus she's trying to build the fragile trust that came with her HeelFaceTurn, and MindRape would destroy any trust even on Captain America's side. Tony doesn't blame her for what she did to his mind, but he's already kept her under house arrest for using her less squicky powers; if she's going to rebel against him, she may as well not remind him of what happened the first time.

** Even though everyone is fighting, it's clear that they're pulling punches and not going all out like it's a real fight; nobody (except Black Panther) really wanted anyone to get seriously hurt. Even when she chides Hawkeye for pulling punches against Black Widow, you'll notice that she merely threw Black Widow into a structure, rater than destroying her with telekinesis. Wanda's game breaking powers would probably have ended the battle swiftly, but after the events of Age of Ultron, using her telepathy powers to reach into her friends' minds would be a gross invasion of privacy and almost seen as a dirty trick, and would almost certainly ruin her relationship with the pro-reg side. Remember, Wanda desperately wants these people NOT to be afraid of her - psychically torturing them in what isn't a life-or-death fight would certainly go against this goal.
** All of that would be valid as far as her not wanting to use telepathy if we had been shown that she can only use it as MindRape. In Sokovia, the people she was controlling in order to leave didn't seem to be suffering. She could have done that to the Pro-Reg side to keep them immobile. As for controlling their minds is an invasion of privacy that would have made the pro-reg side hate her, I'm pretty sure War Machine would have preferred being unable to move while Captain's team escaped than what happened to him. Plus, Wanda herself said that she couldn't control others' fear, only hers. As far as she was concerned, she could have excused herself by saying that controlling them was the best course of action for everyone involved (except the audience, who would have missed out on the battle sequence).

* Yes, he was bloody, beaten, and probably semi-conscious at best, but why didn't Howard Stark appear to be surprised at all to see a man who should have been dead for the last 50 years? He seems so nonchalant about the fact that Bucky is not only alive, but has barely aged a day in half a century. He doesn't even mutter a "You're alive..." or something of that nature before The Winter Soldier kills him.

** His first (and only) words toward him are "Sergeant Barnes?", which seemingly implies that he thought it was actually Bucky and not just someone who looks like him.
** Well, he ''was'' semi-conscious, so he may have just been confused and didn't understand what he was seeing.

** There are an awful lot of what if's that go unusually right for Zemo. How does he know Cap never told Tony all along and his big reveal is met with a laugh and "Yeah I knew that years ago pal"? What happens if Tony actually succeeded in arresting them at the airport? What happens if Tony never stopped Cap at the airport at all and Cap showed up with Sam, Clint, Wanda and Scott backing him up where as Tony has no idea where they are or how to find them? What happens if Cap couldn't save Bucky and the UN police killed him? Or Panther killed him? What happens if Bucky wasn't able to escape from the UN Compound and/or he does but Cap isn't able to go after him? What happens if Thor shows up who can easily break up the fights? His plan required a few too many random things to go right.
** One could argue that even if his plans wouldn't have gone the way they did, he still would have succeeded. At the start of the movie, Tony still tells the tale of his parents' death, instead of telling how they had been murdered. And since Hydra's resurrection was public knowledge, he would have no reason not to tell it if he knew. If Bucky would have died by either police or Panther, Cap would likely not want be an Avenger anymore and that would tear the team apart. If the whole team is captured, the Avengers are disbanded. Zemo has no reason to expect Thor to come out of the sky to deal things, not to mention that we don't know which side he would be on. I'd say Zemo respected the skills that Cap and Bucky have enough to make those plans that required Bucky to escape and Cap to at least get away from the airport.
** I don't think we're supposed to assume that Zemo knew that ''Cap'' knew about Hydra killing the Starks, since he's never made that fact public, and the only other Avenger present for that reveal was Black Widow (who is good at compartmentalizing, and probably didn't tell Tony for the same reason that Steve didn't). If we assume that A) Zemo needed to get to the Siberian compound in order to locate the physical evidence (as well as execute the five other Winter Soldiers), i.e. the tape, and B) his plan initially would have been to send it to Tony, instead of all of them catching up to him, Zemo's scheme looks a lot less fortuitous. Either way Zemo's plan made sense and would have worked based on the information he had. The problem with the final part of the movie was that the writing didn't make this clear, turning what would have been a cool gambit into a coincidence that conveniently worked in Zemo's favor. As for Tony not finding the thread that would have led him to Karpov... do you have any idea just ''how much'' red tape and paperwork there would have been in all of S.H.I.E.L.D.'s secure files? Not to mention, between the last two films, the Avengers were all busy going after Hydra for Loki's Scepter. Tony had better things to do than dig up archived S.H.I.E.L.D. files, especially if he didn't know that his parents' death would be in there somewhere.

** I'm wondering why Bucky went to the trouble of making it look like a car accident (at least, by dragging Howard Stark back into the car), then put a bullet in a security camera. Maybe Hydra had arranged for some of its agents in SHIELD to be responsible for the investigation into the apparent death of someone that has close links with them?
** The car was on fire. If the bodies were badly burned, the autopsies could be inconclusive.

* Why would someone as wealthy and influential as Howard Stark drive something as low rent as a Cadillac Fleetwood? The 90's weren't exactly the stone ages, there were a lot of cars available for someone of his wealth, like Mercedes Benzes, Range Rovers, [=BMWs=], etc. All of these cars and more would have been better than a boxy American Luxury car. However, even if we ignore that, he's a big government contractor (and member of SHIELD's security council-thing), as well as a very rich man. Shouldn't he have chauffeur or a security detail of some sort?
** Zola implies that Howard Stark was killed because he learned about HYDRA's infiltration of SHIELD. In addition, Tony's memories seemed to indicate that Howard was going to make a stop at the Pentagon or some other important place. Most likely he was trying to travel as low profile as possible to get the serum to safe place away from HYDRA's hands, and he didn't know who he could trust. Unfortunately, HYDRA knew more than he thought they did.
** It is common for VIP's, the wealthy, celebs and those who are security conscious to buy and use "common" cars and trucks. Outside the US an American car attracts the wrong kind of attention. In the US (and yes even Europe), a flashy expensive car sticks out. Howard wanted to be as low key as possible. In TheSeventies and TheEighties, Washington DC still had high crime rates. From people who want to get into a wreck for insurance fraud to car thieves and just plain ole' terrorists. Howard thought he had a "cover" and was blending in. Alas, HYDRA was one step ahead, the car may have even be registered at SHIELD headquarters so they knew the make, model and license plate.
** Also, while the 1991 Fleetwood isn't exactly state of the art by 2010s standards, it was at the time the most luxurious American car available. Maybe Howard is a Buy-American kind of guy? As to not having a driver, Tony is at least as wealthy as his father, and does his own driving. It's worth noting also that the big American luxury sedans were common vehicles for [=VIPs=] because their body-on-frame design made it relatively easy to up-armor them (though Howard's car seemed to be stock).

* Furthermore, how did nobody know that the Starks were murdered? There was video evidence of the crash, and even if that was removed by HYDRA (or Obadiah Stane) Maria Stark was ''manually strangled'' by Bucky. Even the most incompetent Medical Examiner in the world would know that such wounds did not come from a simple car crash, especially considering that the most Lincolns came with Passenger side airbags since the late 80's, which rule out any possibility of an accidental death from the crash.
** You're saying HYDRA, which has infiltrated the largest and most powerful intelligence agency on the planet, couldn't pay the coroner to doctor the autopsy report?

** Both their injuries are something you would expect to see in a fatal car accident. Maria likely had a broken neck and Howard had severe blunt force trauma to the head.

** Actually, they imply that, had Thor been on Earth, he ''would'' be held accountable for his acts too (they count him as missing not just "chilling back in his home planet", and blame the Avengers for "losing" him). But since he's not on Earth, there's no point in showing the consequences of his lone actions in that clip.

** Actually, ''that'' probably has more to do with not having any good camera footage of the Wakanda incident. Because one of the clips he shows of New York involves people being injured by debris directly left by the Hulk.

** The focus on the collateral damage was more on human casualties. It is possible that Malekith's brief incursion on earth, while mildly destructive, didn't actually kill anybody.

* Does he have super strength and amazing agility like Steve? The way he moves in the movie, I can't tell whether he's a superhuman or a human in an advanced, high tech suit.

** During Bucky's break out in Berlin, T'Challa put Bucky's metal arm in a grip for a few seconds and leaves Bucky momentarily stunned. I would say that qualifies as enhanced. If you didn't know to my knowledge T'Challa in the comics has mutations/mystical enhancements from Wakanda magical rituals as well as the suit. How much of that they will keep will be clear in his solo film.

* There are times I can tell when Robert Downey Jr's head is pasted on a stunt double. If you look closely at the scene where he is holding an injured Rhodes, Tony's head looks awkward. I can understand Hollywood using stunt doubles for dangerous stunts, but Iron Man is just sitting there with his wounded friend. They could have just put Robert in the suit. What is their reason for this?

** There IS no on set Iron Man suit. It's all CGI pasted onto a mocap suit just like the Hulk. They made a real actual Iron Man suit once, the [=MK3=] for Iron Man, and RDJ even wore it but it was so cumbersome and impossible to move in it was only used for shots when Ironman was just standing there and it was CGI most of the time. The Ironman suit with the helmet retracted effect doesn't quite look so well done in this film because it's a new thing their doing so they presumably haven't worked out the kinks to pasting RDJ's head onto a CGI headless suit I guess. But there's no stuntman wearing a suit. It's all CGI.
** So following that information, if the face looks off then it's the rendering of the green screen or whatever creating the suit. If Robert isn't on set for some reason, then there might be a budget issue. Like any job, if someone is in the place of work then they have to be paid for it. And in a movie, someone is only contracted for a set amount of work - which is what the budget is for. If you need to bring them in for extra time, that's more money to be added to the budget. And when someone's salary is in the millions, that's usually a lot. So doubles and CGI are more cost effective.

** I even double checked, during this moment, there is a distinctive electronic whirring sound coming from Bucky's arm. Yes his arm make's a sound almost anytime he is applying real force with it, but this whole moment is focused on that one instant of T'Challa using the force on his hand.

** He should still install a remote shut-off switch that he can activate from inside his suit. That would enable a civilian to fly the quinjet in an emergency, but it would also allow him to shut the thing down in case of attempted theft. Heck, there are real-life cars that have remote shut-off switches for precisely this reason.
** This gets even more mind boggling when one realizes that in Agents of SHIELD the Quinjets can be operated REMOTELY, this was a plot point in seasons 1 and 3 of the show Victoria Hand takes control of the Bus in Season 1 post the HYDRA reveal, and Lincoln dies in a remote quinjet in Season 3 after disabling the manual controls. There's no reason why Tony wouldn't have such a safe guard in the Quinjets, especially after Hulk took off in [=AoU=]. There is no logical reason why Tony should not have been able to remotely lock out the manual pilot controls, seal the doors and set the auto pilot to take Steve and Bucky to the Avengers Compound, the Raft or anywhere else he wanted. I mean Steve is good, but a technical master he's not he'd have a hard time overriding the controls with Tony and FRIDAY monitoring the quinjet.

** Zemo would have had to be counting on Captain America recruiting allies telling them about the base and them but not Cap or Bucky getting caught and them being in a position where Tony could ask them later. Basically he'd have to be counting on the entire Airport fight going down exactly as it did, which is impossible. If everyone had gotten away, then even when Tony finds out Bucky was set up he's got no clue where Cap went, nobody to ask, meanwhile Cap's arriving at the base with a full Avengers team, and Scarlet Witch and Giant-man smashing the rocket shields apart to get to him. If Cap or Bucky gets caught and a different combination of Avengers show up at Siberia instead, his video is worthless, because Tony either won't have Bucky within arms reach or won't have Cap to set him off by telling him he knew all along. Heck if any other players show up it could ruin everything, as Rhodes or Peter could talk sense into Tony, and Vision or Wanda could restrain him easily unless everyone but Cap and Bucky get caught, and everyone else on Ironman's team is either injured or had to leave for whatever reason like what happened in the movie. And he couldn't possibly have counted on all that.

* The whole plot also falls apart if Steve HAD told Tony about his parent's murders. He may have not had confirmation that it was Bucky who did it...but he DID know/had very heavy suspicion they were murdered. It was a very common fan theory that Steve did tell Tony about the murders, even if he omitted Bucky's role in the act. This movie shows that he didn't tell anybody about the Stark Murders, and only Sam about Bucky which blew up in Steve's face...big time.
** Zemo could very well have known that Steve didn't tell Tony because Tony has publicly stated that he believes his parents were killed in an accidental car crash. Steve's reasons for not telling Tony don't matter at that point because Zemo can just use the fact that Steven never told Tony against him.

* So the final act of his plan is this: Tony needs to be standing beside Bucky while the video plays. If he sent Tony the video while Bucky was elsewhere, he may have had time to calm down while searching for Bucky. If he had arrived late, Cap and Bucky might have been able to capture Zemo before Tony's arrival, and Tony would never have seen the video at all. But here's the issue: Steve and Bucky steal the quinjet and fly directly to Siberia. Tony couldn't catch up to the quinjet even as it was taking off, presumably its cruising speed is much faster. Tony has enough time to grab Rhodey, take him in for a CT scan, have everyone detained, visit the prison, talk to Falcon about Steve's whereabouts, and ''then'' fly to Siberia using the Iron Man suit. And then he arrives mere minutes after Steve and Bucky do.

** The Quinjet was able to fly from Sokovia to the US non stop so it likely uses a similar high tech power source that keep the Iron Man suits from needing to refuel very often. Plus it's not like Cap could stop at a secret Avengers fuel depot, because that would be an obvious place to wait in ambush for him. As for going a roundabout way to avoid detection, maybe, but Age of Ultron showed that with stealth engaged even Tony couldn't track the Quinjet and that's how they lost track of Hulk.

*** Then there's the government. What’s their track record for collateral damage? Well, in the invasion of New York City their first response was to try to ''nuke Manhattan'' while the battle was still undecided. What’s more, let's not forget who would supposedly have control of the Avengers' leash and the power to enlist any superhuman (and violate the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which banned involuntary servitude): bureaucrats and career politicians. It's only been less than two years since HYDRA got exposed. HYDRA was organization that not only controlled nearly the entirety of SHIELD, but had also infiltrated the highest positions of power and governments worldwide for decades. Do you really think they got them all, Secretary Ross? And now you want to hand that kind of power over to the same corrupt, compromised politicians? And that’s not even mentioning the various non-Hydra secret societies and conspiracies out there, like the Hand (since ''Daredevil'' and ''Iron Fist'' established the Hand as having influence on New York City officials), or that one time the Vice-President worked with Aldritch Killian to try to assassinate the President in ''Iron Man 3''.
*** Let’s also look back on the Accords themselves and how they’re pressed on the Avengers. The Accords themselves are roughly the size of a phone book. This thing was plunked down in front of them and they were told that they had three days before they either had to sign or get fucked. It doesn't matter if you have someone as good as Matt Murdock or Jeri Hogarth as your attorney to help guide t hrough understanding all that legalese. Three days is nowhere near enough to understand a document of that density. That’s effectively coercion. And the other methods used to force them to sign, like guilt-tripping and dehumanizing language (Ross compares Banner--a military researcher whom ''Ross'' made into the Hulk--and Thor--a foreign head of state who neither he nor anyone else on Earth has authority over--to ''nuclear weapons''). If nothing else says this is a blatant power play on the part of the world governments, the arms race thing should.

** The problem is that the United States government has a notorious history of failing to prevent corrupt people having too much power. Hence the "tries" part and not the mostly succeeds part. Now add that to a global scale. Over a hundred different countries, some aligned with others. Others sharing common interests with others. Some having ''influence'' over others due to money and agreements. Getting to decide when and where to send a group of super powered individuals. Most important where NOT to send them. Its not about 117 countries being evil, its about politics. Its about doing what is needed vs doing what is wanted. Its about the ability to help those who need helping vs being told it not permitted for being too sensitive or too embarrassing. Its about backroom deals and compromises that allow horrors and crimes for the '' greater good and global stability''. Its about about doing what is right vs not doing it right now, but maybe later when the focuses groups come back and it doesn't conflict with the interests of our allies.
** I think the idea is that with more than 100 countries involved, it would be harder to use The Avengers to enforce the will of any one set of interests. Comic Book Example: In the Ultimate Universe (may it rest in peace), the Ultimates (and other government super humans) were used to trigger regime changes in Iran and North Korea, while The Liberators (super humans from nations in opposition to the U.S.) were used to invade America. In the MCU, the Sokovia Accords would have a strong chance of preventing such abuses, since no one nation would have complete control over the team.

*** It's more understandable that you break out of the place ''that is keeping you from being charged with a war crime?'' Tony '''does''' explain his actions to Steve - "they don't grant visas to weapons of mass destruction!" Wanda's a contentious character to say the least, especially considering she joined the Avengers despite gladly working with HYDRA before, but she's also a 27 year old adult, despite Steve repeatedly referring to her as a kid. And considering that she caused an international incident (which can partially be blamed on Steve and Natasha for taking her on a live-fire mission when she clearly was still in training and couldn't control her powers) she should be well aware of the fact that her actions are going to have consequences. She stays in the compound, she doesn't get strung up in The Hague. She leaves, [[RealityEnsues she becomes an international fugitive with no papers or resources.]] Yes, it's a GildedCage, although she's not technically even under house arrest - Tony asked her to keep her there until he could douse the media fires. But that cage isn't just keeping Wanda, in - it's also keeping a lot of very angry diplomats and world leaders out. Tony is doing damage control, trying to keep the Avengers at least on the board, if limited in the ways they can move, and keeping them from making a bad situation worse. After all, if they keep sending Wanda on missions, something worse could happen.

** Honestly, one would expect him direct his rage against the smug sociopath who was exploiting his emotional turmoil in order to use him like a tool (Zemo), rather than vent it all at the obviously remorseful and unwilling participant (Bucky). Families of ''actual'' murder victims would even say as much: that revenge murder, mutilation, amputation, and shooting an unarmed man ''in the back'' like a ''villain'' is NOT normal, nor is it what a normal person would do in that situation. Tony can feel all the rage and grief he wants. But his actions are wrong. Tony knew Bucky was innocent and not only kept attacking, he literally said he didn't care. For Tony, murdering an innocent man was acceptable because Tony was "upset." Tony could have cried, screamed, yelled, punched a wall, or gone after the ''actual'' people who were responsible (Bucky's handlers who gave him the orders). Instead, Tony chose to viciously attack a man that he knew was innocent. And more than that, the directors have said that Tony did not attack Bucky to avenge the Starks' deaths. Tony attacked Bucky to punish Steve.

** Tony can be as upset as he likes, whether it was justified or not. He does not, however, get to murder people because he's upset (nor does Tony get to shoot an unarmed Sam because Tony is upset. Attacking people because you're upset is never okay). And this wasn't a crime of passion. Tony was stone-cold when he said "I don't care" that Bucky is innocent and kept attacking, ''after Bucky was battered, on the ground and posing no threat''. He didn't care that Bucky was innocent, he was going to kill Bucky anyway. Note that all Steve knew up until this point was that HYDRA might have been involved with the Starks' deaths. He didn't know about Bucky's specific involvement, and he certainly wasn't going to trust Zola's claims without any corroboration, especially since Zola told him and Natasha this to delay them until the missile struck the bunker they were in. That Steve chose not to pull that thread makes him human. Steve hid the truth from himself as well as Tony. It's certainly far less of a "betrayal" than Tony's deciding to use the scepter to create Ultron because Tony couldn't be bothered to have a town hall debate. In fact, [[FridgeHorror that may be why Steve never told Tony what he'd learned from Zola]], which is that he knew Tony wouldn't react well when the truth came out.

** Honestly, one would expect him direct his rage against the smug sociopath who was exploiting his emotional turmoil in order to use him like a tool (Zemo), rather than vent it all at the obviously remorseful and unwilling participant (Bucky).

*** The problem with the Accords isn't that it provides oversight, if that's all that it was Steve and likely everybody else would have signed it without a problem. The issue is that the Accords give the UN the power to control whether the Avengers and likely others can be superheroes AT ALL. The Avengers are a crack team of superheroes specifically created for and regularly come into situations where it hits the fan so badly that some collateral damage is nothing compared to what would happen if the Avengers did nothing and they are the only ones who can do anything, just like the whole situation the movie starts with. The whole point of the Avengers is that they are the ones who come in when there isn't any time to wait for a bunch of politicians who can't even tie their shoes without having a several hour long debate or firepower and skill to deal with the problem in any other fashion. If the Accords were signed by all the Avengers they would be effectively destroying themselves and likely the world in the process by defeating the whole point of the group, and eventually the world would be destroyed because of one time the UN wouldn't let the Avengers act.

** We're getting off of the original topic, but to answer you're question, you're confusing ''restraint'' and ''reasoning'' as the exact same thing. Reasoning isn't determined by what actions you take, but by the clarity and awareness with which you chose those actions. In Iron Man 1 he builds a state-of-the-art weapon [[MemeticMutation "In a cave! With a bunch of scraps!"]] while mortally wounded, in intense pain, and hounded by men who would kill him without hesitation. Later on he's utterly nonchalant about slipping into cardiac arrest, and later still refuses to panic after Stane betrays him, maintaining the prescience of mind to zero in on the obsolete arc reactor. In 2, he creates a new element by following some extremely obscure breadcrumbs while suffering from painful, debilitating poison, with only hours left to live, and resolves a major crisis in the same afternoon. In 3, he takes down half a dozen hired killers plus a few super-powered individuals with ''improvised weapons'' in ''spite'' of intense PSTD. In Avengers 1, he hijacks a nuke and flies into vacuum in open defiance of self-preservation, and repairs a Helicarrier while under fire. Needless to say, but few people could have operated under those circumstances without being blinded/disabled by fear, shock, panic, anger, or despair. Remember that this guy isn't a soldier, government agent, Norse war god, android, or the Hulk; he's a '''civilian''' with [[BadassNormal no training, special upbringing, or powers to help him to cope with what's going on around him]]. Sorry about going on a tangent there. Short version; Impulsiveness and rationality are not mutually exclusive.

** Tony could FEEL whatever he wanted, whether it was justified or not. He does not, however, get to murder people because he's upset (nor does Tony get to shoot an unarmed Sam because Tony is upset. Attacking people because you're upset is never okay). And this wasn't a crime of passion. Tony was stone-cold when he said "I don't care" that Bucky is innocent and kept attacking. Tony mutilated Bucky and attacked Bucky ''after Bucky was battered, on the ground and posing no threat'', acting kinda like a villain in that moment. Note that all Steve knew up until this point was that Hydra might have been involved with the Starks' deaths. He didn't know about Bucky's specific involvement, and he certainly wasn't going to trust Zola's claims without any corroboration. That Steve chose not to pull that thread makes him human. Steve hid the truth from himself as well as Tony. It's certainly far less of a "betrayal" than Tony's deciding to use the sceptre to create Ultron because Tony couldn't be bothered to have a town hall debate.

*** Let’s also look back on the Accords themselves and how they’re pressed on the Avengers. The Accords themselves are roughly the size of a phone book. This thing was plunked down in front of them and they were told that they had three days before they either had to sign or get fucked. It doesn't matter if you have someone as good as Matt Murdock or Jeri Hogarth as your attorney. Three days is nowhere near enough to understand a document of that density. That’s effectively coercion. And the other methods used to force them to sign, like guilt-tripping and dehumanizing language (Ross compares Banner--a military researcher whom ''Ross'' made into the Hulk--and Thor--a foreign head of state who neither he nor anyone else on Earth has authority over--to ''nuclear weapons''). If nothing else says this is a blatant power play on the part of the world governments, the arms race thing should.

* According to the trailer the government is blaming the superheroes for the disasters in New York, Washington D.C. and Sokovia, but in NY the destruction was caused by the Chitauri Loki brought, the D.C. one was because HYDRA took a Helicarrier which inevitably would end in disaster, and the Sokovia one wouldn't have happened if Ultron didn't levitate the city. So why are they blaming the superheroes? how did they expected them to end? Did they expect them to just sit and watch while innocents were killed?

** In the comics, he got rid of it because it upset the throwing balance of his shield.

** This is not Earth-616. There are not that many superheroes in the MCU. It is ''extremely'' unlikely that the fugitives could continue to fight crime without being identified, especially today when everybody has cameras.

** Tony could FEEL whatever he wanted, whether it was justified or not. He does not, however, get to murder people because he's upset (nor does Tony get to shoot an unarmed Sam because Tony is upset. Attacking people because you're upset is never okay). And this wasn't a crime of passion. Tony was stone-cold when he said "I don't care" that Bucky is innocent and kept attacking. Tony mutilated Bucky and attacked Bucky ''after Bucky was battered, on the ground and posing no threat''. Note that all Steve knew up until this point was that Hydra might have been involved with the Starks' deaths. He didn't know about Bucky's specific involvement, and he certainly wasn't going to trust Zola's claims without any corroboration. That Steve chose not to pull that thread makes him human. Steve hid the truth from himself as well as Tony. It's certainly far less of a "betrayal" than Tony's deciding to use the sceptre to create Ultron because Tony couldn't be bothered to have a town hall debate.

** English is a fairly common second language in many foreign countries. Plus, since Zemo was a high ranking special forces officer, it would stand to reason that his family would be well off enough to afford a decent education. Not to mention, Sokovia appears to have been largely controlled by HYDRA, which is a primarily English-speaking entity, so they could have been encouraging Sokovians to transition to English which would fit into their plans for a unified world order.

*** Well, the actor is German, so what we hear is actually his second language.

** The way ''Age of Ultron'' played out, Wanda and Pietro were seen as misguided kids by the team that some of them (Cap and Hawkeye) were trying to get them to see the error of their ways. When the twins fought alongside the team and were willing to sacrifices their lives to fix their mistakes it was enough for them. Wanda was given a second chance by joining the Avengers and working toward atonement. This similar to what Clint did for Natasha in the MCU. As for this film intentionally ignoring Age of Ultron with Wanda I think it was a case of not being able to dive in depth with Wanda in this film and the fact that a year in universe for the characters. Wanda not mentioning her brother in this film could be a sign of her overcoming her grief. Her not using her telepathy could be her pulling her punches. Mentioning her action in Age of Ultron wasn't really necessary. Wanda already felt bad for mistake in Civil War. Bringing up her hand in the Ultron incident wasn't necessary for the story or her character arc.

** Steve's attitude is understandable because, look, being held against your will without being charged or informed by a legal authority of your status, and being confined based on other people's fears? That's how the United States treated people of Japanese descent in World War II, something Steve would know because one of the Howling Commandoes, Jim Morita, was one of those who enlisted to avoid the internment camps. Wanda was not approached by a government authority and asked to not make any travel plans in the forseeable future. She was held illegally against her will because Tony Stark thought he had the right to illegally confine someone. There might be ramifications or potential problems if Wanda goes out in public, but it's ''Wanda'' who gets to make those decisions. '''NOBODY''' has the right to intern her against her will. Tony Stark, as a private citizen, has no right to hold anyone against their will.

** The problem is that if you look at the UN in recent history, and it has had problems getting ''anything'' done because the mere ''fifteen'' members of the Security Council cannot agree on anything. UN decisions are very much motivated by global politics, and you commonly see the US vetoing Russia and China's proposals and vice versa. Now you're asking a governing body of over ''one hundred'' nations to try and agree on something? What if one nation decides to grandstand, and vetoes the Avengers' deployment to another nation because it happens to be nation 1's rival? The UN today is rife with the very thing Cap fears, men giving agendas precedence over doing the right thing.

** As of the ''Infinity War'' promos, it looks like this was correct - she's a fugitive in Wakanda.

** Unsurprising that the blame goes to the Avengers because its easier. In real life situations are complex and multi layered. But in the MCU like in real life people in general when answers quick and easy. They want someone to blame, they need someone to blame. They don't want a long story just something short and sweet they can focus on. Something to feel a sense of control. Alien Invasion? Those Avengers did it. Helicarriers falling out of the sky? Avengers are the cause. Killer Robot? Yeah that time it was them. They want answers, clear and easy to understand so the media and the government hands then the Avengers. They accept it because it gives a face to their fear and uncertainty. Something the can understand to help them to process this new world of alien invasions and Thunder Gods.
** Now that the movie has come out, it's clear that "blaming the superheroes" is inaccurate -- the Sokovia Accords isn't about blaming the Avengers as much as assuaging people's fears that these superpowered individuals are running around and accountable to no-one. What's to stop Captain America and War Machine from deciding to chasing ISIS throughout sixteen different countries and playing cowboy cops along the way? Especially if office buildings full of people get killed as collateral damage?
** One wonders why Cap didn't point out that they WERE working alongside a government agency to help them recover an artifact that was stolen from them when the invasion of NYC happened with zero forewarning and then kept said agency from NUKING NEW YORK CITY, which wouldn't have really done too much damage to the bulk of the Chitauri forces on the other side of the portal, though. Or how dropping the Helicarriers on Washington, DC was done without official government sanction because the government agency that normally works with Captain America, along with the World Security Council that oversees 'them', had been compromised by former Nazis almost since its inception and that without their actions, most of the people involved in the Sokovia Accords would probably have been sniped within fifteen minutes. Or that while Ultron was Tony and Wanda's fault, by the time the fight started, dropping Sokovia at that point became the only way to prevent a global extinction event. Or that the explosion that destroyed the Wakandan good will ambassadors was the tragic ending to a mission that prevented international terrorists from escaping with a bioweapon, then prevented them from releasing the bioweapon in public, and that the accident in question was to prevent a Rogue US soldier from detonating a suicide bomb in the middle of a crowded public area that would have resulted in probably at least as many deaths as what ended up happening. Or that Ross DID already lose the Hulk.
** Cap decides to reject the accords and go rogue, so presumably he was at least thinking about this stuff even if he didn't say it all out loud. And remember, the accords don't state that the Avengers aren't allowed to save the world anymore; it's just that they have to be overseen by a UN panel. So for most of the objections you mentioned, the counterargument would be "Ok yeah, but how hard is it to do all that same stuff with a little more oversight?"

### The one at the start of the film is the least forgivable. Cap takes a young and inexperienced woman, still figuring out her powers, essentially into a war zone. Yes, she saved Cap and a lot of people by trying to contain Crossbones' bomb, but her poor situational awareness led to the deaths of many others. Whether the death toll was greater or lesser than if she hadn't acted at all is up for debate, but ultimately irrelevant: Wanda fucked up royal. She may have acted with the intent to minimize casualties, but her actions did not accomplish that goal. Without proper training and education to be aware of her surroundings, the limits of her powers, and how to actually achieve the goal of minimal casualties, she had no business whatsoever even being on that mission. At least, from the perspective of an armchair quarterback.
** The question the public seems to be asking is 'Does Might Equal Right?' - all they know is that several catastrophes happened and thousands of deaths were the result. From their perspective, the Avengers are supposed to ''stop'' this from happening. When there are still casualties and damages, the public wants someone to blame. The accord seems to give the illusion of safety at the very least.
*** The whole damn Sokovia Accords is a contrived mess. The United Nations has ZERO authority over autonomous citizens, enhanced or otherwise. Literally the ONLY Avengers they could possibly try to give orders to are Captain America (Member United States Army) and Natasha and Clint (Members of whatever secret squirrel organizations they work for.) Banner is a private citizen, and Thor is a bloody GOD. The United States has specifically attempted on no fewer than four occasions to get the Iron Man technology from Stark, and he refused to help them other than the creation of War Machine. (And you think he doesn't have a software disconnect for that suit?) The fact that Iron Man is in FAVOR of handing his autonomy away when he expressly refused to do so in his own movies shows how terribly contrived this situation actually is. On top of that, the trigger event was the bomb Scarlet Witch detonated next to an office building. Seems the UN somehow forgot she was trying to prevent it from being detonated in the middle of a friggin' MARKET with HUNDREDS of potential victims. Let's also not forget that the same organization trying to blame the Avengers for the damage caused by the Chitauri invasion ALSO TRIED TO NUKE MANHATTAN! None of it makes a lick of sense.
* As pointed out above, the Accords are a mess, think a legal rush job, the point of them is for heroes to act with oversight, however as the winter soldier showed sometimes that oversight is corrupt, hence Caps' rebellion, also making THUNDERBOLT ROSS of all people basically in charge of it is a huge trip up, this is a dude who is actively known to have a particular hardon of hatred for "enchanced" individuals, even in the comics it is shown that while the principle of the subject is sound, people are and always will be extremely failable, not only that but the biggest no point is the fact that while many heroes would willingly register, bad guys would not and those who do would become superpowered thugs in goverment employ.
** The UN's problem with Wanda's incident is first and foremost: on whose authority did Cap and Co decide they were going to start a fight in broad daylight in a foreign country? Wanda tried to contain a suicide bomber who wouldn't have tried to blow himself up if Cap wasn't there trying to arrest him in the first place. In the real world if you as a private citizen shoot someone in the middle of a bank robbery killing spree, but kill a couple bystanders in the process, you don't get to just walk away from that. Now imagine that scenario but the only reason the shooting started was because you did something to escalate the situation into a gunfight. That's what the Avengers are being accused of doing around the world.
** While the UN problem is a valid one, it is an unrealistic response considering the world the UN finds itself in. It is a world where global extinction events occur over a matter of hours not days. There is literally no time to debate, consider and weigh options. If the UN had presented the accords as a talking point seeking input from Steve and co, to find a way for rapid response with oversight in regards to enhanced threats that Steve would have been more receptive. The UN concerns are valid but so are Steve. It’s not just a matter of oversight but options, using the real world as an example takes a different slant as the real world in this case in the MCU. Whereas stated extinction events occur over hours and immediate response is needed. Not debated endlessly, if the UN and government bodies where more trust worthy that Steve would be more receptive. But after the [[Film/TheAvengers2012 Battle of New York,]] [[Film/CaptainAmericaTheWinterSoldier Project Insight,]] and real life history Steve refusing to sign is understandable. That is not to say he would not have, with Tony’s influence they could have changed it to be more practical. But presented heavy handed as it was his refusal to sign is logical, unfortunately events out of both he and Tony’s control prevented them from making a compromise that would have led to him signing. Collateral damage in the MCU is unfortunate and terrible, Steve is not denying that. If a solution was presented that allowed him to protect the Earth without compromising response time would have signed. He didn’t because he knows as a good soldier in certain situations hesitation leads to someone [[Film/AvengersInfinityWar like Thanos showing up wiping out half of life. ]]

** After the fall, Tony gives Vision a DeathGlare and later chides him when they are the hospital. He doesn't exactly let him get off easy.

** Could be he blames Wanda, as it seems her powers affected Vision's. Could explain why Tony doesn't help Wanda after he sees she's being kept inside an isolated cell. Later she's even seen in a straightjacket, though that might have nothing to do with Tony, as we don't even know if Tony knows about the straightjacket.

* So the accords were apparently being discussed for one years following Ultron's rampage. At no point someone thought it would be a great idea to, you know, ask the Avengers what they thought of it? Maybe negotiate stuff, remove things that are impossible to enforce, place exceptions in emergency cases, etc... Instead of dropping that door stopper and telling them to STFU and sign the thing already?

** The whole point of The Accords is for the nations of the world to stand up to The Avengers and tell them "Hey, we're the people with the actual right to govern our nations and enforce the law and we're not tolerating your vigilantism anymore". Negotiating terms that The Avengers approve of would rather defeat that purpose.
** It's hard to believe that in a YEAR since [=AoU=] nobody on any of the Avengers knew that was coming down the pike, so even if the UN wasn't willing to talk to the Avengers the second they got wind of this they should have gone proactive and maybe pulled back on some of their ops, that is a bigger headscratcher that nobody thought to include the Avengers...and that the Avengers were so completely blindsided by that doorstopper.

** But if you recall from the opening segments, they were staking out a Police Station, not the CDC Building. Giving the idea that they had no idea the target was a Bio-Weapon. Per Cap's opening statements this was the first lead they have had (meaning Crossbones) so in theory is that they only knew that Crossbones was operating in the area...but no idea of his motives or his target till they rammed the CDC building. The UN's [=POV=] would be that if the Avengers had worked with local governments and tried to get better intel on Crossbones movements they could have been better prepared, which given the outcome of that op...isn't an entirely unreasonable assumption.
** The thing is as shown in ''Series/AgentsOfSHIELD'' time constraints may be a factor. When Hive threatened global decimation the team did not have time to assemble a case. Present the case to the proper authorities. Sort of the bureaucratic red tape and sign the proper forms. Have meetings explaining what had occurred and give a report on why they had to act. When a rules stickler and [[BotheringByTheBook career military soldier like General Talbot]] helps your team commit treason in order to save the World then time is factor. For Cap, time was a factor. Unknown hostiles, lead by a dangerous [[OneManArmy super human who was a member]] of a [[ANaziByAnyOtherName fascist terrorist group.]] Does Cap have time to try to explain to the proper authorities, meet the right people. Answer the right questions and sign the right papers. Also after ''Film/CaptainAmericaTheWinterSoldier'' the Avengers may make it a habit of trusting their own instincts. In the end the problem with the accords, are time constraints, trust in Governments who in the real World have a history of what is convenient over what is right.

** The main problem with the Accords, and why its considered by some a bad thing. Is not the UN aspect but the aspect of those in power, corrupt or otherwise who can define what is and what is not something that needs to be Avengers worthy. Let's be honest, corruption and agendas are a daily thing in the geopolitical landscape. Add to the fact the US was able to get General "use heavy ordnance on american soil, damn the collateral threat" to be it's main watchdog is a symptom of the problem. As for In-universe the Avengers operated for years globally without problems. Then collateral damage happened, suddenly everybody is concerned about borders and sovereignty. Which would be fine except its comes across more about saving face and definitely opportunistic. Do they consult the Avengers before writing them up? Do they give them options or explain necessity of the Accords? No they send their watchdog, a man as subtle as a hammer to tell them sign or retire. They tell the Avengers, Steve to trust a system he knows can be corrupted or brought off to make the right moral choice over the more convenient choice. They use words like property damage and accountability but we know thanks to Thanos the cost of when the Avengers don't act. What kind of property damage or collatoral damage Crossbones could have caused with that virus on the open market? What kind of damage Project Oversight had gone unchallenged and Steve went through all the red tape to get authority to take them on? The main problem with the Accords is not only trusting the UN, or those with power in the UN to make the right choice. But in a World where world ending threats happen on the fly, the Avengers are duty bound to respond. Collateral damage like property and death, are a cost of the reality of that particular World. A few versus the many is the hard math at play. If the UN could have given Steve a viable option to prevent that while allowing rapid response, he would have taken it. They didn't, and that is why he and the others chose what they did.

** Same way the US government tries to prevent corrupt people from having to much power: checks and balances. A couple of countries can be corrupt. 117 countries that are ALL as evil as HYDRA is a bit harder to believe and they can try to keep each other in check. It's not a perfect system, but if you think it's so bad then you probably need to start criticizing it in real life then and not just in a superhero movie.
** The problem is that the US government has a notorious history of failing to prevent corrupt people having too much power. Hence the tries part and not the mostly succeeds part. Now add that to a Global scale. Over a hundred different countries, some aligned with others. Others sharing common interests with others. Some having ''influence'' over others due to money and agreements. Getting to decide when and where to send a group of super powered individuals. Most important where NOT to send them. Its not about 117 countries being evil, its about politics. Its about doing what is needed vs doing what is wanted. Its about to the ability to help those who need helping vs being told it not permitted for being too sensitive or too embarrassing. Its about back room deals and compromises that allow horrors and crimes for the '' greater good and global stability''. Its about about doing what is right vs not doing it right now, but maybe later when the focuses groups come back and it doesn't conflict with the interests of our allies.
** I think the idea is that with more than 100 countries involved it would be harder to use The Avengers to enforce the will of any one set of interests. Comic Book Example: In the Ultimate Universe (may it rest in peace), the Ultimates (and other government super humans) were used to trigger regime changes in Iran and North Korea while a team known as The Liberators (super humans from nations in opposition to the U.S.) were used to invade America. In the MCU, the Sokovia Accords would have a strong chance of preventing such abuses, since no one nation would have complete control over the team.
** The problem is that if you look at the UN in recent history, and it has had problems getting ''anything'' done because the mere ''fifteen'' member Security Council cannot agree on anything. UN decisions are very much motivated by global politics, and you commonly see the US vetoing Russia and China's proposals and vice versa. Now you're asking a governing body of over ''one hundred'' nations to try and agree on something? What if one nation decides to grandstand, and vetoes the Avengers' deployment to another nation because it happens to be nation 1's rival? The UN today is rife with the very thing Cap fears, men giving agendas precedence over doing the right thing.

** It was the wrong situation to be using her telepathy. On the ship in ''Age of Ultron'', she was using stealth to distract the minds of the Avengers, and had back-up from Pietro when Hawkeye resisted. Back in Sokovia when she did her part to evacuate the people, Wanda wasn't under any threat at that moment. At the airport battle, she's got six individuals to help contend with, all with different abilities and fighting styles who would probably resist mind control. Her telekinesis requires intense concentration anyway, as shown, Rhodey broke that concentration when she tried to stop the rubble falling over the entrance to the hangar.

** In that case, Steve and the others might as well not sign the accords at all. Signing them and then breaking them also means the governments who united to draft the accords would come down even harder on them. Steve might also be concerned with exactly how the governments involved plan to enforce the accords: Tony puts Wanda under what is house arrest in all but name. Signing the accords might just mean being locked in a GildedCage and only let out when the UN committee decides the Avengers are needed (in the scene where Steve and Tony talk with the two pens, Steve does seem to consider signing ''until'' Tony mentions how Wanda is being treated). It's not possible to break the accords if you're locked in a location until it's decided that you're needed, and that leads into Steve's concern that the committee appointed might misjudge a situation and let the Avengers act too late, resulting in far more deaths than if the Avengers were free to act of their own accord.

** There are an awful lot of what if's that go unusually right for Zemo. How does he know Cap never told Tony all along and his big reveal is met with a laugh and "Yeah I knew that years ago pal"? What happens if Tony actually succeeded in arresting them at the airport? What happens if Tony never stopped Cap at the airport at all and Cap showed up with Sam Clint Wanda and Scott backing him up where as Tony has no idea where they are or how to find them? What happens if Cap couldn't save Bucky and the UN police killed him? Or Panther killed him? What happens if Bucky wasn't able to escape from the UN Compound and/or he does but Cap isn't able to go after him? What happens if Thor shows up who can easily break up the fights? His plan required a few too many random things to go right.
** One could argue that even if his plans wouldn't have gone the way they did, he still would have succeeded. At the start of the movie, Tony still tells the tale of his parents car crash, instead of telling how they had been murdered. And since Hydra's resurrection was public knowledge, he would have no reason not to tell it if he knew. If Bucky would have died by either police or Panther, Cap would likely not want be an Avenger anymore and that would tear the team apart. If the whole team is captured, the Avengers are disbanded. Zemo has no reason to expect Thor to come out of the sky to deal things, not to mention that we don't know which side he would be on. I'd say Zemo respected the skills that Cap and Bucky have enough to make those plans that required Bucky to escape and Cap to at least get away from the airport.

** Also, while the 90-91 Fleetwood isn't exactly state of the art by 2010s standards, it was at the time the most luxurious American car available. Maybe Howard is a Buy-American kind of guy? As to not having a driver, Tony is at least as wealthy as his father, and does his own driving. It's worth noting also that the big American luxury sedans were common vehicles for [=VIPs=] because their body-on-frame design made it relatively easy to up-armor them (though Howard's car seemed to be stock).

** The reason Bucky's cell is electrified is because he was The Winter Soldier. Zemo's cell doesn't need that same kind of security. Perhaps it's not as high-security. Of course the meta reason is probably because it's more practical to use the same set rather than waste time and money constructing a new one for the sake of one shot.

** Zemo did ''not'' learn about the HYDRA base from the HYDRA files on the internet. The internet files just led him to the agent in Cleveland, and even then I'm sure they didn't say "this guy is in Cleveland". They probably just gave him a few bread crumbs to follow and he eventually figured it out and tracked the guy down. He also knew, from the files, that the guy dealt with the Winter Soldier, and that there was a mission of some kind in 1991. Zemo surmised that the mission was the assassination of the Starks, but he needed more proof before he could get Tony to attack Steve and Bucky. So he went to the guy in Cleveland, killed him when he wouldn't talk, and took the Winter Soldier codebook that the guy had hidden in his house. The next part of his plan involved getting close to Bucky, mind-controlling him and asking him questions. ''That's'' when he learned the location of the HYDRA base; it was so secret that it wasn't even in the files. The only way to find it was to interrogate a guy who had personally been there before.

** The Deaths of the Starks were front page news (shown by Zola in The Winter Soldier and in the intro/flashback of the 2008 Iron Man) Tony had no need or reason to publicly declare that his parents died in a car wreck in 1991 the world already knew, and had no reason to re-state that fact between the events of Winter Soldier and Civil War. The info about the murders came out in 2014 (to Steve only...maybe Nat as well). It's possible that Howard's role in the founding of SHIELD was not public knowledge after all even Tony didn't know that about his dad until Iron Man 2 where Fury told him. So Tony had no idea his parents were actually murdered until Zemo showed the tape and Steve revealed that he already knew and kept the truth from him.

* So the final act of his plan is this: Tony needs to be standing beside Bucky while the video plays. If he sent Tony the video while Bucky was elsewhere, he may have had time to calm down while searching for Bucky. If he had arrived late, Cap and Bucky might have been able to capture Zemo before Tony's arrival, and Tony would never have seen the video at all. But here's the issue: Steve and Bucky steal the quinjet and fly directly to Siberia. Tony couldn't catch up to the quinjet even as it was taking off, presumably its cruising speed is much faster. Tony has enough time to grab Rhodey, take him in for a CT scan, have everyone detained, visit the prison, talk to Falcon about captain's whereabouts, and ''then'' fly to Siberia using the Iron Man suit. And then he arrives mere minutes after Steve and Bucky do.
** Presumably Steve and Bucky would have had to make occasional stops to refuel the Quinjet, since it's a LONG way from Germany to Siberia. Not to mention, they probably couldn't fly a straight line there in order to avoid air defenses and hostile planes.

* The film starts with Zemo interrogating a Hydra officer about the mission. He didn't ''guess'' that Hydra killed them, he ''found out''. Black Widow released a lot of Hydra secrets, and after the Sokovia battle, that's likely where Zemo would've gone looking for dirt.

** Yeah, and? The plan also wouldn't have worked if Cap had told Tony earlier. Or if Tony had found out another way. Or if Tony had slipped and fallen in the shower and knocked himself out of commission. ''Any'' plan is going to have elements of it that you can't control, which is why they're called plans and not "absolute certainties." And, point of fact -- Tony's response to someone wounding their friend was, "Hey! Bloodthirsty, murderous, international terrorist! Come at me bro!" Tony, quite simply, is '''not''' someone you'd expect to be rational and forgiving about the people he cares about being harmed. It's like saying, "The plan wouldn't work if Cap had killed Bucky." It's just not something you would expect from the character anyway.

** Actually, yes. At the risk of sounding cold and aloof, people truly are capable of beating down their outrage to do the right thing (or at least refrain from doing the wrong thing) no matter how vindicated that rage may be. Tony has proven to have exceptional willpower prior to now, and while I fully sympathize with his desire to go on a rampage that reaction was far from inevitable.

** That's speaking hypothetically from the comfort of behind a computer, detached from the actual situation. You ''don't'' know how you'd react in a situation you've never experienced. The whole, "Well, '''I''' would have acted perfectly in this situation" argument is not a valid argument at all.

** Tony has a ''terrible'' history of retaining his reasoning or his temper. ''Iron Man 2'' is two hours of him acting unreasonable because he's dying. ''Iron Man 3'' is two hours of him acting unreasonable because of his PTSD and his friend being injured. In ''Avengers'', he immediately attacks Thor instead of talking things out. In ''Age of Ultron'', his response to Steve, Wanda and Pietro trying to shut down the Vision's creation is to start a fight. So just ''where'' are you getting the idea that Tony would show any kind of restraint whatsoever when confronted with his parents' murderer?

** How exactly could she have ''used'' that freedom. As stated above, we see no indication that she has a social life outside of the Avengers. While freedom is a strong principle that shouldn't be taken lightly, did she plow Vision through more than a dozen stories on principle alone?
** How about the fact that she was being held house arrest without anyone telling her and that said arrest was done by the very person who is to fault for the death of her parents? Even she wasn't going to do much outside of the compound, it's a basic right a person should have. Not being able to go anywhere is quite harsh. Not to mention, it's not clear that people would even recognize her. Put on civilian clothes and ta-da, problem solved. At least it worked for Tony, Steve and Natasha. And I think that it was more about slowing Vision down, so far no-one has been able to actually hurt him.
** The concept of Wanda being under house arrest after her accident is quite sound. She messed up, people got killed by her hand, in any other law enforcement group it's pretty much SOP that if you mess up you get benched till reviews are done and reports are made and precautions are taken to insure it never happens again. Logically it should have been STEVE to tell Wanda that she was benched for the time being till things cool off and she gets better training/testing whatever, not Tony doing behind everybody's back. Tony also brought up a good point in the blow-up at Berlin, Wanda is NOT a US Citizen and in theory the US Government (read Ross) could very easily have her Visa/Passport revoked and Wanda detained/deported and heaven only knows what else he could have done to her. And while Wanda could have handled herself if anybody DID give her crap if she moved around in public, all it would have taken was one more screw up and there would be no way to save her from Ross. Tony had the right idea in keeping her under house arrest, but just handled it badly...Steve gets the side eye because he believe she should only get a hug and a few comforting words because "She's just a Kid!"
*** It may be SOP to bench someone, but I doubt it's SOP to arrest them or confine them to quarters. Maybe confine them to base, if there's a bunch of protesters outside the gates (which wasn't established). Plenty of cops shooting unarmed people in the back who went home to their families that night. Also, worst that Ross could do would be to convince an immigration judge to deport her (which would be like intentionally losing a nuke in this case, so no WAY he's going to do that) or have her extradited to Nigeria for her crimes there. Even no citizens have the same rights as American citizens when they're in this country, other than the right to vote and run for office.
** I don't think this was supposed to be a unforgivable moment or that we're even all suppose to side with Wanda and Steve. The Russo brothers did say in the past interviews that their goal was to make the conflict more gray and give both sides valid points. The comic tried to do that, but ended up making Iron Man and pro side actions so extreme that all the valid points they brought up got overlooked by fans and painted them as the villains. The movie avoided that and as a result we have people who view Steve's actions as right and Tony's as wrong or visa versa. Personally I see Wanda's house arrest as a perfect example of both sides having fair points and flaws in it. Steve is clearly upset because he feels the action is too extreme. Wanda's actions cost people's lives, but what was ignored was that she limited the loss of life from what it would have been had Crossbones been allowed to explode in the center of a market place. No doubt his own guilt on putting Wanda in that position probably played a part in it. Steve feels Wanda's punishment and the way people are treating her is wrong. Now Tony put Wanda under house arrest because people's anger over the incident, all the things people ignored before (like Wanda living in the U.S. without a visa) are going to be hit hard and used as an excuse to lock her up. Tony found a compromise to keep Wanda safe and with her new family by keeping her confined to the compound, while appease people and governments that something is being done. It is a reasonable compromise. From there we are up to decide who we agree with more. Neither side is clearly supposed to be 100% right or wrong. If you feel Steve and Wanda were being unreasonable that is fine. It is also fine if people think Tony handled the situation wrong or that Wanda has every reason to be upset.

** You can agree with Tony's goals all you want and a lot of the characters probably would have but it is not the goals that is the problem but the methods. No justification can be made for detaining someone without their knowledge or consent and claim benevolent intentions. Tony still tends to fall back into bad habits and this is one of them. Just like with with Ultron, he goes behind his team's back and acts surprised when they are pissed about it. He just can't understand how to be a team player and thinks he needs to micromanage every problem. If he had told everyone his viewpoint, including Wanda, and put it to a vote or discussion, then compromise might have been met that would have worked and made everyone happy. As stated his goals were sound. But he didn't bother cause he might not have gotten his way, which is the only right way. Doesn't really sound like someone really respects the nature of oversight and compromise.
** A GildedCage is still a cage: Unless one would be willing to live one's entire life confined to a single place, even if that place has all commodities one wants, (and if that's the case then one has bigger problems than merely the issue of being confined), and specially if the reason for the containment is because ''one did the best that could be done in a terrible situation'', then one should be able to see Wanda's point. As usual, it's a matter of putting oneself in their shoes and Wanda's POV is far, ''far'' more understandable than Stark's, IMO.
*** It's more understandable that you break out of the place ''that is keeping you from being charged with a war crime?'' Tony '''does''' explain his actions to Steve - "they don't grant visas to weapons of mass destruction!" Wanda's a contentious character to say the least, especially considering she joined the Avengers despite gladly working with HYDRA before, but she's also an adult, despite Steve repeatedly referring to her as a kid. And considering that she caused an international incident (which can partially be blamed on Steve and Natasha for taking her on a live-fire mission when she clearly was still in training and couldn't control her powers) she should be well aware of the fact that her actions are going to have consequences. She stays in the compound, she doesn't get strung up in an international court. She leaves, hey, guess what, [[RealityEnsues she becomes an international fugitive with no papers or resources.]] Yes, it's a GildedCage, although she's not technically even under house arrest - Tony asked her to keep her there until he could douse the media fires. But that cage isn't just keeping her in - it's also keeping a lot of very angry diplomats and world leaders out. Tony is doing damage control, trying to keep the Avengers at least on the board, if limited in the ways they can move, and keeping them from making a bad situation worse. After all, if they keep sending Wanda on missions, she might, I don't know, be involved in half an airport in Berlin getting destroyed.

** Actually, it seemed clear that a lot of countries were getting more and more worrisome with the Avengers' actions; you don't get 140+ countries to support the Accords just because eleven people of one country were killed. After ''Age of Ultron,'' every country out there is wondering if they're going to be next, and Nigeria just showed that it doesn't have to be a flashy high-profile incident to drop a half-dozen super beings on your doorstep. The king of Wakanda simply became the spokesman for the international drive behind the Accords because they were the latest victims -- their Vibranium was the catalyst for Ultron's plans and their countrymen were among the casualties of the Nigeria explosion.
** How did they choose to step on the playground? Wakanda didn't send soldiers into an active superpowered battle, they sent aid workers and the battle found them so to speak. And Seeing as Ross plays a big part in the Accords, and the above comment, I took it more as this was the final act that pushed the world to demand oversight.
** Truth be told, it's mainly politics looking for someone to blame for all the death and destruction. The Avengers are the perfect scapegoats, since they were involved in all four of the events that Ross points out. Of course, like most politicians, they're quick to blame the Avengers while not really acknowledging that not only were the Avengers not responsible for any of those attacks (the only one that could really be blamed on an Avenger is Ultron, and even then, it's not like Tony intentionally programmed Ultron to be genocidal), but that they were only reason the death toll and destruction wasn't '''worse!''' For New York, it's not like the Chitauri were just going to stop murdering civilians if the Avengers just asked nicely (not to mention, the government's first reaction was to nuke the city, which definitely would've killed way more people). In Washington, HYDRA was seconds away from murdering seven hundred thousand people on the Eastern Seaboard, with their end goal being the deaths of 20 million people. Ultron's endgame was the death of the entire human race, and it's not like the Avengers just decided to blow up the city with all the people still on it. Hell, they went out of their way to save everyone still in the city, whereas the governments would've probably just nuked it outright if they had the chance. As for Nigeria, while it's easy to blame Wanda for the death of dozens of people, but when you look at the crowd of people in the bazaar and how big the explosion was, you realize that Wanda likely also saved hundreds of lives with her actions. Short version, the governments are mostly ignoring the good the Avengers have done while focusing on the negative aspects of their conflicts, but that's politics and public perception for you.
*** Actually the Hulk attack in Johannesburg is a pretty good argument for the Avengers needing oversight given it was caused by Wanda who while not an Avenger at the time, is one currently.

** Does the public know that she had influenced Hulk that time? It could have been easily understood as "Hulk is on a rampage, period". It isn't as if going in such rampages was to be an unexpected behavior from him.

** It seems like the creators of this film intentionally ignored almost everything about the character from the movie where she was introduced: no mention of her brother or her being Sokovian, no more telepathic powers, and especially no mention of the morally questionable things she and her brother did in the first half of the last movie. Continuity in the MCU seems to be done in BroadStrokes, especially when the creative teams change.

** The way Age of Ultron played out Wanda and Pietro were seen as misguided kids by the team that some of them (Cap and Hawkeye) were trying to get them to see the error of their ways. When the twins fought alongside the team and were willing to sacrifices their lives to fix their mistakes it was enough for them. Wanda was given a second chance by joining the Avengers and working toward atonement. This similar to what Clint did for Natasha in the MCU. As for this film intentionally ignoring Age of Ultron with Wanda I think it was a case of not being able to dive in depth with Wanda in this film and the fact that a year in universe for the characters. Wanda not mentioning her brother in this film could be a sign of her overcoming her grief. Her not using her telepathy could be her pulling her punches. Mentioning her action in Age of Ultron wasn't really necessary. Wanda already felt bad for mistake in Civil War. Bringing up her hand in the Ultron incident wasn't necessary for the story or her character arc.
** What exactly does punishing her accomplish? If anything, joining the Avengers is a good way of making her atone for what she's done. She's put to work using her powers to help others. So being part of the team keeps her off the street and ensures that she's not using her powers ''against'' anyone - only to help.

** The Government in the MCU is in the habit of recruiting defectors all the time e.g. all those HYDRA scientists who almost certainly contributed to the deaths of countless innocent people. The Avengers doing that for Wanda isn't really much different. She's powerful enough to be a valuable asset to the team, especially since she helped mop the floor with Ultron. And considering the Avengers were about to be placed under the control of the UN due to the Sokovia accords (assuming some time passed between the actual Battle of Sokovia and the scene where we see Cap calling the new team together), The Avengers might have been encouraged to take her on by a government looking to get the incredibly powerful Scarlet Witch under their thumb. And she did get a proper redemption arc. It was in Age of Ultron: She started as a straight-up antagonist, developed into an AntiVillain when we learned her motives, then became a full-on hero when she realized she had messed up, felt bad about it, and helped fix it, saving innocents in the process. Her NaiveNewcomer qualities are due to the fact that she's A) relatively new to the whole "hero" thing and B) still learning how The Avengers operate. If her seeming IncorruptiblePurePureness bothers you, think of it as her trying too hard, acting the part of the hero she wants to be.
** We're making the assumption that Wanda intentionally released the Hulk on Johannesburg, but really it's just the writers looking for an excuse to have a Hulk rampage. As mentioned above, it can be argued that Wanda didn't actually want to unleash the Hulk, but even if she did, why would she send him to a city that's miles away, instead of, oh I don't know, siccing him on the mostly catatonic Avengers? You could say "to distract Tony" but I think trying to stop Hulk from killing his teammates would keep him plenty distracted as well. And from what we've seen of her character before and after, she clearly doesn't want innocent people to get hurt which was why she and her brother abandoned Ultron. So yeah, we can chalk the inconsistency to the writing in Age of Ultron.

** One wonders why Cap didn't point out that they WERE working alongside a government agency to help them recover an artifact that was stolen from them when the invasion of NYC happened with zero forewarning and then kept said agency from NUKING NEW YORK CITY, which wouldn't have really done too much damage to the bulk of the Chitauri forces on the other side of the portal, though. Or how dropping the Helicarriers on Washington, DC was done without official government sanction because the government agency that normally works with Captain America, along with The World Security Council that oversees 'them', had been compromised by former Nazis almost since its inception and that without their actions, most of the people involved in the Sokovia Accords would probably have been sniped within fifteen minutes. Or that while Ultron was Tony and Wanda's fault, by the time the fight started, dropping Sokovia at that point became the only way to prevent a global extinction event. Or that the explosion that destroyed the Wakandan good will ambassadors was the tragic ending to a mission that prevented international terrorists from escaping with a bioweapon, then prevented them from releasing the bioweapon in public, and that the accident in question was to prevent a Rogue US soldier from detonating a suicide bomb in the middle of a crowded public area that would have resulted in probably at least as many deaths as what ended up happening. Or that Ross DID already lose the Hulk.

** The problem is that if you look at the UN in recent history, and it has had problems getting ANYTHING done because the mere FIFTEEN member Security Council cannot agree on anything. UN decisions are very much motivated by global politics, and you commonly see the US vetoing Russia and China's proposals and vice versa. Now you're asking a governing body of over a HUNDRED countries to try and agree on something? What if one nation vetoes the Avengers' deployment to another nation because it happens to be nation 1's rival? The UN today is rife with the very thing Cap fears, men giving agendas precedence over doing the right thing.