Originally Posted by
ZeroBG82
Steve's argument in Civil War was never about accountability. It was about agency. He's not saying that it's wrong to hold the Avengers accountable for things like collateral damage or the consequences of their choices, his concern was with giving up their ability to make those choices. Steve doesn't view the Avengers as a weapon, to be directed as another group sees fit. He wants their actions and choices to be their own, even when they're bad.
Tony doesn't actually care about accountability either, when you get right down to it. He just wants the freedom (from guilt) that comes with not being the person making the choices of when and where to act. His eagerness to give up that responsibility has nothing to do with keeping bad things from happening or lessening the actual human toll, but merely with him not wanting the burden of responsibility for those things when they INEVITABLY happen.
Because we can talk about it all we want, but in these big superhero fights stuff IS GOING TO BE DESTROYED AND PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DIE. Period. The Avengers can do everything possible to limit that, but the bad guys don't care and often actively seek wanton destruction. You're not going to stop it. Minimize it maybe, but you don't need government oversight for that, you just need human decency and the effort to think about it. I point you to Steve's conversation with Wanda in that very film, which by no accident immediately precedes Ross's arrival and the introduction of the Accords. The Sokovia Accords were an effort to assert control over the Avengers disguised behind claims of accountability. It was a fake argument, and all the evidence you need to see that is that it was Thunderbolt Ross making the pitch. Accountability as a smokescreen for a hostile takeover.
One criticism I do have of that film is that they don't really get into that as explicitly as they should. Tony is acting from guilt, and the fear of future guilt. Steve is the one who is actually willing to shoulder the burden of their failures along with celebrating their successes. And both of their positions are born from their experiences in a really effective and powerful way. Tony has learned that he probably does need somebody riding herd on him because of his reckless ambition and faith in himself (which has ironically destroyed itself, eaten it's own tail like Ouroboros). And Steve has learned that organizations and bureaucracies can hide agendas and nefarious deeds behind false words and layers of disguised intentions. Tony's position FEELS more acceptable because it's paying lip service to the human toll of these incidents. It hits notes of concern for safety and prosperity. But it masks what is actually an abdication of responsibility, an abandonment of agency.
An interesting thought experiment (and something I wish the film had addressed directly) is whether or not Steve would have been ok with an alternative means of accountability. An after action review from an international panel, for example. Censure and punishment if it is deemed they acted recklessly, negligently or against the common interest. Protocols put in place for rules of engagement and a means of enforcement that doesn't take the reins of decision making away from the Avengers themselves. Or, in other words, an actual mechanism of accountability without control.