I don't know enough about Cato to have an honest opinion on him, but I do find it weird, anyone who advocates War constantly seems like someone who works for the other side.
Context is important. At the time he said that (approaching the start of the 3rd Punic war), Rome had already fought 2 wars with Carthage - yet they still didn't feel secure from them. For even more context, check out the territorial transfers that occurred during the first 2 wars. Carthage was to Rome at that time as Britain was to the United States in the early 1770s: An unwanted occupying force. The first two wars may have resulted in Roman territorial acquisition, but it didn't end undue influence from Carthage. The 3rd war in effect ended that.
Certain parallels could be drawn to the War of 1812 in that regard.
!
What was the actual threat a city-state on the other side of the Mediterranean posed to Rome, tho?
Occupying military power projected unjustly against the populace? Interference with trade? Sabotage of diplomatic relations with other powers? Pillage, plunder and slaves? The game remains the same Theo: Same as it ever was. Well I'm uncertain if they had money laundering back then.
I'd have to read a boatload more to get more specific, or learn Latin and time travel back to the day. Neither will be occuring any time soon, so take a walk to your local library, check out a book and immerse your mind. Sorry - don't have a specific tome to recommend you.