I'm not against government oversight as an idea, but I don't think Steve is, either. When General Ross brought it up, he didn't throw the document at him, shout "F*** you, martial law!" and get away on a speedboat. Or...a more reasonable description of what might happen in that scene. He read the document. It was the details of the Accords as they stood that he objected to, and he wasn't willing to sign his name to something he thought was wrong. And this isn't like not liking Obamacare. This was something that could have potentially disastrous consequences for the world. And when we're judging whether Tony was right to endorse the Accords or Steve was right to defy them, what else can we go by but by how the Accords are presented? And if you want to argue that Accords would get better over time, what can use to assess whether that's true than the behavior of those behind the Accords? Tony knows that Bucky's been brainwashed. What Tony doesn't actually know is where Steve got his information or why he hasn't contacted Tony before now. And when he does come across Steve, and Steve is saying there's more to the story, Tony doesn't want to hear it. Say the situation was reversed. Steve starts to tell Tony about the doctor, and then Tony says, "No, Steve, you don't understand. The doctor and Bucky are working together. They've been playing you this whole time." Steve responds, "Great story, Tony, but I've got a plane to catch. Clock's ticking. See you on the flipside." Is that understandable behavior? Does it matter that Steve's being told he misunderstood the situation "too late"?