Marvel Universe >> View Thread

Author
Halo82




I just read Captain America #25, NA #28, and Mighty Avengers #1 which has provoked some CW thoughts.

Now, to be fair, Ironman tried to make the best of a bad situation...but he's still a moron for supporting this. Here's a couple of points that have been argued in support of the SHRA.

The will of the people. Supposedly there the ones who want the SHRA but they didn't seem too happy when Cap was going to court being dragged around like a common criminal. What did there signs say? Oh yeah, "free Captain America" even though he broke the precious law. Hell, I even saw a few "SHRA is fascist" type signs in the crowd. So exactly which people are we talking about?

Property damage. This is just plain stupid. In Mighty Avengers there fighting a bunch of giant monsters and Ms. Marvel is worried about property damage? Even worse the govt. is gonna give them a hard time about it? There's no good reason for that other then some far fetched example of a hospital losing power which is in no way shape or form the heroes fault since it's the VILLIANS who are to blame since they attacked in the first place. Everyone loves to use the Military as an example for the SHRA (which is specious) so do you really think the Marines would give a damn about property damage in a war?

Controlling things from within. Supposedly as director of SHIELD Ironman can keep things reasonable except that in Mighty Avengers he makes it clear he doesn't have control since if they don't bring in the New Avengers "they" will. Crap crap crap.

I'm sure I'll think of more later but I gots to go.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows Vista
spiderprince




> I just read Captain America #25, NA #28, and Mighty Avengers #1 which has provoked some CW thoughts.

>

> Now, to be fair, Ironman tried to make the best of a bad situation...but he's still a moron for supporting this. Here's a couple of points that have been argued in support of the SHRA.

>

> The will of the people. Supposedly there the ones who want the SHRA but they didn't seem too happy when Cap was going to court being dragged around like a common criminal. What did there signs say? Oh yeah, "free Captain America" even though he broke the precious law. Hell, I even saw a few "SHRA is fascist" type signs in the crowd. So exactly which people are we talking about?



Not everyone is going to agree with any one side. Thats just unrealistic, especially considering that many people idolized Cap just prior to CW. Poeple still support him, but they are the minority.

>

> Property damage. This is just plain stupid. In Mighty Avengers there fighting a bunch of giant monsters and Ms. Marvel is worried about property damage? Even worse the govt. is gonna give them a hard time about it? There's no good reason for that other then some far fetched example of a hospital losing power which is in no way shape or form the heroes fault since it's the VILLIANS who are to blame since they attacked in the first place. Everyone loves to use the Military as an example for the SHRA (which is specious) so do you really think the Marines would give a damn about property damage in a war?



Its just stupid? Tell that to people that are in the buildings as they are crumbling, or the people out in the streets when rumble started falling?



> Controlling things from within. Supposedly as director of SHIELD Ironman can keep things reasonable except that in Mighty Avengers he makes it clear he doesn't have control since if they don't bring in the New Avengers "they" will. Crap crap crap.



We don't even know what that means yet. Lets not jump the gun about his "total loss of control" when we aren't even sure what he means.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 5 on Windows 2000
Halo82




> Not everyone is going to agree with any one side. Thats just unrealistic, especially considering that many people idolized Cap just prior to CW. Poeple still support him, but they are the minority.

>

I think your missing my point. I'm just saying it's fallacious to use the will of the people as an arguement when it's impossible to know what the people want. For all we know the people who support the SHRA are simply the outspoken minority. And whether it's the majority or minority is moot point since people are people.



> >

>

> Its just stupid? Tell that to people that are in the buildings as they are crumbling, or the people out in the streets when rumble started falling?

>

Sure, no problem. I'll tell them they can deal with property damage or getting killed because heroes didn't oppose super villians.



> We don't even know what that means yet. Lets not jump the gun about his "total loss of control" when we aren't even sure what he means.



I know that Tony doesn't have as much control as others would like to think.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows Vista
Coisa




I didn´t get it.

Is this a "A-haaa, I told ya SHRA was BAD, and I´m enjoyng see it failing" post, or it is a " gosh, Now that SHRA passed the books just suck, i´m bored" post ?


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.3 on Windows XP
Halo82




> I didn´t get it.
>
> Is this a "A-haaa, I told ya SHRA was BAD, and I´m enjoyng see it failing" post, or it is a " gosh, Now that SHRA passed the books just suck, i´m bored" post ?

Neither. It's a I-really-hate-the-concept-of-the-SHRA-and-here's-a-few-more-reasons-why post.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows Vista
Funkguerilla





> The will of the people. Supposedly there the ones who want the SHRA but they didn't seem too happy when Cap was going to court being dragged around like a common criminal. What did there signs say? Oh yeah, "free Captain America" even though he broke the precious law. Hell, I even saw a few "SHRA is fascist" type signs in the crowd. So exactly which people are we talking about?

How about the people who were asking for the Act during the Civil War Mini, like the ones who put the beatdown on the Human Torch, the family in Stamford that felt safe around the heroes because the Sentinal Squad was around, all the talking heads on the news, or the rescue workers that pulled Cap off of Tony, just to name a few.

Course there was also the guy who threw a tomato into Cap's face while he was being led to prison along with pro-SHRA protesters at what would be cap's assassination.

> Property damage. This is just plain stupid. In Mighty Avengers there fighting a bunch of giant monsters and Ms. Marvel is worried about property damage? Even worse the govt. is gonna give them a hard time about it? Everyone loves to use the Military as an example for the SHRA (which is specious) so do you really think the Marines would give a damn about property damage in a war?

Did it occur to you that the gov't might not want there to be excessive property damage, hence the heroes trying to keep the collateral damage to a minimum. Besides that the heroes aren't in a war, and shouldn't be given carte blanche to do whatever they want to stop a villian. Especially now with Damage COntrol going through some rough times.

> Controlling things from within. Supposedly as director of SHIELD Ironman can keep things reasonable except that in Mighty Avengers he makes it clear he doesn't have control since if they don't bring in the New Avengers "they" will.

Well it's not as if Tony can look the other way forever as his former teammates and friends willingly and wantonly break the law without some kind of repercussions. If Tony doesn't try, or doesn't look like he's trying to take the New Avengers, the UN would probably get a new director who could do it. And they probably wouldn't do it as nicely as I'm sure Tony will. Remember, every hero we've seen him bring in he always starts with talk and an offer of amnesity, and only resorts to violence if attacked first.

-The Funk


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 1.5.0.11 on MacOS X
Halo82




> How about the people who were asking for the Act during the Civil War Mini, like the ones who put the beatdown on the Human Torch, the family in Stamford that felt safe around the heroes because the Sentinal Squad was around, all the talking heads on the news, or the rescue workers that pulled Cap off of Tony, just to name a few.

Okay, there were people who wanted the SHRA. Never denied that. I'm simply saying you shouldn't talk about the will of the people when are alot of peopl who don't feel that way. It seems offly one sided.
>
> Course there was also the guy who threw a tomato into Cap's face while he was being led to prison along with pro-SHRA protesters at what would be cap's assassination.

Actually that's false. He threw a tomato at Cap cause "Captain America doesn't quit".
>
> Did it occur to you that the gov't might not want there to be excessive property damage, hence the heroes trying to keep the collateral damage to a minimum. Besides that the heroes aren't in a war, and shouldn't be given carte blanche to do whatever they want to stop a villian. Especially now with Damage COntrol going through some rough times.

Sure it occured to me but it just doesn't compute. Why shouldn't they be givin carte blanche to stop evil? If you mean they shouldn't be able to kill anyone they want I agree but think that's kind of a moot point cause then they become evil themselves. If your saying that the heroes should hold back and worry about property damage saving humanity then I think that's a pritty lousy perogative.
>
> Well it's not as if Tony can look the other way forever as his former teammates and friends willingly and wantonly break the law without some kind of repercussions.

Sure he could. He could say "listen I've been protecting the world from greater threats to people" which obviously there are plenty of.

>If Tony doesn't try, or doesn't look like he's trying to take the New Avengers, the UN would probably get a new director who could do it. And they probably wouldn't do it as nicely as I'm sure Tony will.

This just proves my point. Tony can't really control things from within. He's a puppet answering to an unreasonable master.

>Remember, every hero we've seen him bring in he always starts with talk and an offer of amnesity, and only resorts to violence if attacked first.
>
I'm willing to give credit where credit is due. Tony has handled this better then SHIELD and has made the best of a bad situation.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows Vista
FZ




> I just read Captain America #25, NA #28, and Mighty Avengers #1 which has provoked some CW thoughts.
>
> Now, to be fair, Ironman tried to make the best of a bad situation...but he's still a moron for supporting this. Here's a couple of points that have been argued in support of the SHRA.

I think he acted more rationally, and Cap finally realised this at the end, throughout SHRA. Stark acted like an adult. It made Cap look real bad, IMO.
>
> The will of the people. Supposedly there the ones who want the SHRA but they didn't seem too happy when Cap was going to court being dragged around like a common criminal. What did there signs say? Oh yeah, "free Captain America" even though he broke the precious law. Hell, I even saw a few "SHRA is fascist" type signs in the crowd. So exactly which people are we talking about?

Obviously Cap supporters would be outside court. Second, SHRA is as 'fascist' as regulating a Police Force. This whole series has been an over the top allegory for current events, which are also over the top.
>
> Property damage. This is just plain stupid. In Mighty Avengers there fighting a bunch of giant monsters and Ms. Marvel is worried about property damage? Even worse the govt. is gonna give them a hard time about it? There's no good reason for that other then some far fetched example of a hospital losing power which is in no way shape or form the heroes fault since it's the VILLIANS who are to blame since they attacked in the first place. Everyone loves to use the Military as an example for the SHRA (which is specious) so do you really think the Marines would give a damn about property damage in a war?

I see SHRA more as an internal regulation of a 'militia.' More of a SWAT team/Police force regulation.
>
> Controlling things from within. Supposedly as director of SHIELD Ironman can keep things reasonable except that in Mighty Avengers he makes it clear he doesn't have control since if they don't bring in the New Avengers "they" will. Crap crap crap.

Seems logical, but, administrations change and even the best meaning things can go wrong. Which is how MARVEL will bring Cap back to save the day and fill their pockets some more..ooops.. \:D
>
> I'm sure I'll think of more later but I gots to go.


Posted with Mozilla 0.9.4.2 on Windows XP
Goblin




> The will of the people. Supposedly there the ones who want the SHRA but they didn't seem too happy when Cap was going to court being dragged around like a common criminal. What did there signs say? Oh yeah, "free Captain America" even though he broke the precious law. Hell, I even saw a few "SHRA is fascist" type signs in the crowd. So exactly which people are we talking about?

There were also signs in the courthouse scene calling Captain America a traitor. So it was a mixed crowd. And you can be for the SHRA but not necessarily approve of the idea of Captain America going to jail. I would have preferred him just getting amnesty and the whole Civil War mess being put to a rest if I were a citizen in the MU.

Figures have been given during and after Civil War about the percentages of people for and against the SHRA. Yeah, obviously it's not the literal "will of the people" because there's no such thing. No entire populace will ever agree on anything. Best they can ever do is try polling the voters and people likely to become voters next election.

During Civil War after Bill Foster's death, the public opinion polls showed that 65% approved of the SHRA and 35% were against. This is apparently a drop in approval for the SHRA as it was before Foster's death. So... the percentage against was roughly equivalent to the real world figure of those who approve of Bush's job performance.

Now that the war has ended with Iron Man's side the victor, the approval rating for the SHRA has apparently risen to 84%.

> Property damage. This is just plain stupid. In Mighty Avengers there fighting a bunch of giant monsters and Ms. Marvel is worried about property damage? Even worse the govt. is gonna give them a hard time about it? There's no good reason for that other then some far fetched example of a hospital losing power which is in no way shape or form the heroes fault since it's the VILLIANS who are to blame since they attacked in the first place. Everyone loves to use the Military as an example for the SHRA (which is specious) so do you really think the Marines would give a damn about property damage in a war?

I don't really see the problem. Ms. Marvel was just showing some consideration for the impact the fight could have. She wasn't at all implying that they should give the monsters a chance to run rampant to spare property damage. More like there's no reason they have to go punching the things through buildings. They're supposed to be the best, so they shouldn't have to turn every encounter into a warzone. Getting the job done with as little destruction and harm as possible should be the ideal goal for every hero.

> Controlling things from within. Supposedly as director of SHIELD Ironman can keep things reasonable except that in Mighty Avengers he makes it clear he doesn't have control since if they don't bring in the New Avengers "they" will. Crap crap crap.

Well... did anyone think Iron Man became ruler of the world? He became the Director of SHIELD. That means he directs SHIELD in the activities its meant to take. He doesn't get to ignore the things SHIELD is expected to do. So no, he doesn't have complete control. But the thinking that if you can't do everything then you should do nothing is a useless mindset to have. Tony can't control everything, but he can influence a lot.

So yeah, if he doesn't bring in the New Avengers, others will. His best option is to do so himself with the Avengers. If not the Avengers, he'll have to delegate it to a SHIELD unit who could possibly use some harsher tactics or get those agents hurt(I'd have some concern for the safety of those I sent up against Wolverine, Echo and whoever Ronin is). If not that and the New Avengers keep going, eventually responsibility for apprehending unregistered superhumans will pass completely over to the CSA and they'll send the Thunderbolts.


Posted with Netscape Navigator 7.2 on Windows XP
spiderprince




> I think your missing my point. I'm just saying it's fallacious to use the will of the people as an arguement when it's impossible to know what the people want. For all we know the people who support the SHRA are simply the outspoken minority. And whether it's the majority or minority is moot point since people are people.

That doesn't make sense. So if the majority of people support arresting criminals and one person doesn't think thats a good idea its ok to let offenders walk because people are people?

> Sure, no problem. I'll tell them they can deal with property damage or getting killed because heroes didn't oppose super villians.

Which is a moot point because heroes are still opposing villians. Only difference is that they are now registered.

> I know that Tony doesn't have as much control as others would like to think.

What do you mean by control? If you're doubting whether or not he has control over SHIELD that really remains to be seen but from what I've seen so far its definitely better than when Hill was in charge.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows 2000
Sandman




> > I just read Captain America #25, NA #28, and Mighty Avengers #1 which has provoked some CW thoughts.
> >
> > Now, to be fair, Ironman tried to make the best of a bad situation...but he's still a moron for supporting this. Here's a couple of points that have been argued in support of the SHRA.
>
> I think he acted more rationally, and Cap finally realised this at the end, throughout SHRA. Stark acted like an adult. It made Cap look real bad, IMO.

He practically declared himself smarter then the rest of the world and nothing he did was what you would call "orderly fashion", but a witch hunt to use the fear that the Stamford incident created to mold the U.S to his image. He started a possible war with Atlantes to get more superhumans to sign and get more public support which means that he'll perhaps cause more innocent people to die. He decided that he knew what was best for the world and proved that he was the wrong man for the job because the U.S. is now hanging on a thread which is why the reporters from Frontline decided to not print their story that Tony was a nut case traitor because of how delicate Tony has made things and it would surely start the war.

He made things worse and is now trying to control more then he can handle which is why Dum-Dum thinks that a disaster is going to happen to S.H.I.E.L.D. because Tony doesn't seem to get on why S.H.I.E.L.D. was created and some politicians seem to have the same concern even though Iron Man had some successful missions that's similiar to what the Avengers had, but once he goes into the serious S.H.I.E.L.D. missions that Fury and Dum-Dum have experience in then that event with Hydra and the helibase almost crashing into Manhattan will probably happen again, but this time it will happen since the first time was meant to be a distraction to get Spider-Woman.

Tony has no idea what he's doing because he's too busy thinking he's going to make the world a better place in his little box that he's living in. Cap may be a 1940's man, but at least he was aware of the fact that Tony and Hills were endangering innocent people, powers or not, and their families for a crime that was committed by others and drafting them into government property, even though they say it's something else, but the pro-regs are on their way to creating a disater that's bigger then the Stamford incident because they're no different or better then the Squadron Supreme when they took over their country and did questionable things to create a false crime free state because they were the criminals now, because there are some things, some realities, that even a law can't change.
> >
> > The will of the people. Supposedly there the ones who want the SHRA but they didn't seem too happy when Cap was going to court being dragged around like a common criminal. What did there signs say? Oh yeah, "free Captain America" even though he broke the precious law. Hell, I even saw a few "SHRA is fascist" type signs in the crowd. So exactly which people are we talking about?
>
> Obviously Cap supporters would be outside court. Second, SHRA is as 'fascist' as regulating a Police Force. This whole series has been an over the top allegory for current events, which are also over the top.
> >
> > Property damage. This is just plain stupid. In Mighty Avengers there fighting a bunch of giant monsters and Ms. Marvel is worried about property damage? Even worse the govt. is gonna give them a hard time about it? There's no good reason for that other then some far fetched example of a hospital losing power which is in no way shape or form the heroes fault since it's the VILLIANS who are to blame since they attacked in the first place. Everyone loves to use the Military as an example for the SHRA (which is specious) so do you really think the Marines would give a damn about property damage in a war?
>
> I see SHRA more as an internal regulation of a 'militia.' More of a SWAT team/Police force regulation.
> >
> > Controlling things from within. Supposedly as director of SHIELD Ironman can keep things reasonable except that in Mighty Avengers he makes it clear he doesn't have control since if they don't bring in the New Avengers "they" will. Crap crap crap.
>
> Seems logical, but, administrations change and even the best meaning things can go wrong. Which is how MARVEL will bring Cap back to save the day and fill their pockets some more..ooops.. \:D
> >
> > I'm sure I'll think of more later but I gots to go.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.3 on Windows XP
Halo82




> There were also signs in the courthouse scene calling Captain America a traitor. So it was a mixed crowd. And you can be for the SHRA but not necessarily approve of the idea of Captain America going to jail. I would have preferred him just getting amnesty and the whole Civil War mess being put to a rest if I were a citizen in the MU.

I can agree on the amnesty thing.
>
> Figures have been given during and after Civil War about the percentages of people for and against the SHRA. Yeah, obviously it's not the literal "will of the people" because there's no such thing. No entire populace will ever agree on anything. Best they can ever do is try polling the voters and people likely to become voters next election.

Look, if it was an overwhelming percentage of people for the SHRA (for example 95%) then I could see saying "the will of the people" but it's not that grand.
>
> Now that the war has ended with Iron Man's side the victor, the approval rating for the SHRA has apparently risen to 84%.

We'll see how the numbers look when Hulk comes back and gives humanity a wake up call.
>
> I don't really see the problem. Ms. Marvel was just showing some consideration for the impact the fight could have. She wasn't at all implying that they should give the monsters a chance to run rampant to spare property damage. More like there's no reason they have to go punching the things through buildings. They're supposed to be the best, so they shouldn't have to turn every encounter into a warzone. Getting the job done with as little destruction and harm as possible should be the ideal goal for every hero.

It's property! Inanimate crap that can easily be replaced and why should people have to even considerate when fighting not only for there lives but likely the lives of those property owners. It's plain ridiculous. It's like fussing over broken egg shells when making an omelet.
>
> Well... did anyone think Iron Man became ruler of the world? He became the Director of SHIELD. That means he directs SHIELD in the activities its meant to take. He doesn't get to ignore the things SHIELD is expected to do. So no, he doesn't have complete control. But the thinking that if you can't do everything then you should do nothing is a useless mindset to have. Tony can't control everything, but he can influence a lot.

You don't get what I'm saying. The arguement has been to register so you can keep things from going to bad. Posters have made that point here and Ironman made it too when he was talking to Cage. It's now been proven to be a meaningless point since not only does Tony not have as much control as he made it out he would but also Tony is the only hero who has any. So, to be honest, the above just sounds like rationalizing after the fact.
>
> So yeah, if he doesn't bring in the New Avengers, others will. His best option is to do so himself with the Avengers. If not the Avengers, he'll have to delegate it to a SHIELD unit who could possibly use some harsher tactics or get those agents hurt(I'd have some concern for the safety of those I sent up against Wolverine, Echo and whoever Ronin is). If not that and the New Avengers keep going, eventually responsibility for apprehending unregistered superhumans will pass completely over to the CSA and they'll send the Thunderbolts.

I don't think it is his best option. I think his best option is too focuse on protecting the world and let the NA take there chances. Why not. It's not as if there gonna be safe any which way it goes, there super heroes, thy spend there lives in danger.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows Vista
Halo82




> That doesn't make sense. So if the majority of people support arresting criminals and one person doesn't think thats a good idea its ok to let offenders walk because people are people?

Point taken. I still thinks it's fallacious to use the will of the people as an arguement since it's impossible to know what they want. I guess a better way to say it would be the will of the voters.
>
> Which is a moot point because heroes are still opposing villians. Only difference is that they are now registered.

No, the diffrence now the heroes have to devote some of there thought to something as meaningless as property. Comparitively speaking anyway. I just it's unreasonable to have heroes worry about anything other then 1)surviving and 2)protecting people. Anything else in that situation is a waste of thought.
>

> What do you mean by control? If you're doubting whether or not he has control over SHIELD that really remains to be seen but from what I've seen so far its definitely better than when Hill was in charge.

I mean one of the Tony's rationalizations for registering was to keep things from going bad from within (see his conversation with Luke Cage in NA 22) but obviously that point was misleading.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows Vista
Sandman




> > I just read Captain America #25, NA #28, and Mighty Avengers #1 which has provoked some CW thoughts.
>
> >
>
> > Now, to be fair, Ironman tried to make the best of a bad situation...but he's still a moron for supporting this. Here's a couple of points that have been argued in support of the SHRA.
>
> >
>
> > The will of the people. Supposedly there the ones who want the SHRA but they didn't seem too happy when Cap was going to court being dragged around like a common criminal. What did there signs say? Oh yeah, "free Captain America" even though he broke the precious law. Hell, I even saw a few "SHRA is fascist" type signs in the crowd. So exactly which people are we talking about?
>
>
>
> Not everyone is going to agree with any one side. Thats just unrealistic, especially considering that many people idolized Cap just prior to CW. Poeple still support him, but they are the minority.
>
> >
>
> > Property damage. This is just plain stupid. In Mighty Avengers there fighting a bunch of giant monsters and Ms. Marvel is worried about property damage? Even worse the govt. is gonna give them a hard time about it? There's no good reason for that other then some far fetched example of a hospital losing power which is in no way shape or form the heroes fault since it's the VILLIANS who are to blame since they attacked in the first place. Everyone loves to use the Military as an example for the SHRA (which is specious) so do you really think the Marines would give a damn about property damage in a war?
>
>
>
> Its just stupid? Tell that to people that are in the buildings as they are crumbling, or the people out in the streets when rumble started falling?

Tell that to the Thunderbolts, marshals, when they went after Daredevil or Clor. The pro-regs have been endangering innocent people a lot more then the anti-regs and been using the law as an excuse that says that it's ok for them to do it.
>
>
>
> > Controlling things from within. Supposedly as director of SHIELD Ironman can keep things reasonable except that in Mighty Avengers he makes it clear he doesn't have control since if they don't bring in the New Avengers "they" will. Crap crap crap.
>
>
>
> We don't even know what that means yet. Lets not jump the gun about his "total loss of control" when we aren't even sure what he means.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.3 on Windows XP

Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2018 Powermad Software