As his income grew, Cato also became a regular investor in commercial lending. Although a law from 218 BC banned senators from engaging directly in commercial shipping, Cato formed partnerships of fifty investors that backed the commercial operations of fifty ships. He fronted all of the initial capital and then lent money to investors that they could each use to buy a share in the enterprise. Cato himself entrusted one share to a freed slave who acted as his agent. He then profited from the trading activities as well as the interest on these loans, while following the letter of the law and limiting his direct exposure in case the cargo was lost.
I'll just leave this here: I think the destruction of Carthage was a great catastrophe. Both for the world from a humanitarian perspective and for Rome which squandered a lot of economic generativity.
If Rome had stayed a local power, could a divided Mediterranean have been even more dynamic than a unified empire? Perhaps rivalry between regional powers would have inspired greater human achievement. There certainly would have been wars, but not necessarily more than those the Roman Empire actually fought.
Russia has been embarrassingly bad at conquering Ukraine, but it's truly incredible how thoroughly their talking points have conquered conservatives in the USA. They frame anything other than complete capitulation to Russian invasion as crazed aggression against Russia, as if Russia didn't send its conquering army out of its borders and couldn't withdraw that army at any time and be left alone.
>"They frame anything other than complete capitulation to Russian invasion as crazed aggression against Russia..."
This has been common among many groups for a long time; I recall the GWB administration proposing a missile interceptor system based in Eastern Europe in the mid-oughts, and Democratic Party members in congress opposed it as 'provocative'. The (Liberal) Canadian government of the time opposed that as well as the Alaska based 'shield' as being 'aggressive'.
I suspect this has something to do with (politically self-identified) disempowered groups generally wanting to 'shoot down' initiatives, but the Trump administration seems to have a different motivation.
Just like Iran has been aggressively being encircled by our helpless inmocent bases for decades? Can't believe people are still swallowing this imperial propaganda. A tale as old as time and people still refuse to learn from it.
No, those two things are not equivalent. Posture and capabilities are open to interpretation in a way that armies crossing a border and bombing your cities simply isn't.
Shipping weapons, ammunition, and other supplies to one side in an active conflict is much more 'provocative' than building a facility located hundreds or thousands of kilometers from the border of a potential adversary.
Most things which differ are not equivalent; pointing that out isn't helpful.
Lots of things are threats, including long-range stealth bombers, of which the USA already fields 19, and is manufacturing more. Attack submarines are a threat as well, because they can destroy SSBNs, which are the only credible second-strike credibility.
"Well, the nazis tried it with the Jews, now you are trying this with Russians."
This is what you wrote. You think the guy you've answered to is closer to doing Nazi things to the Russians by making this joke, than the Russians are to doing Nazi things to the Ukrainians by actually murdering them in the hundred thousands using bombs, missiles, guns, forced deportation and forced assimilation? You Gremlins really cannot take a joke. That's probably why you don't like to see a comedian as head of a sovereign state.
It would be indeed a "misstep" had I not reacted to an open call for the genocide of the Russian people. (Allowed by the way quite liberally on your "social networks" and here.)
As for "false equivalence", you are not a Russian, so it is really not for you to speak.
"As a third and final action point, I am of the opinion that Carthage must be destroyed."