I don't think that's the message.  While Cap is the star, I think Tony's side was well represented (especially compared to the comics where he was almost  a straight up supervillain in the arc).  Tony's certainly not portrayed as evil or totally unreasonable.  In the book this was based on, they beat you over the head with the idea that Cap is right.  Here, they did a fairly good job balancing it.  

In the comics, Cap was always portrayed as a character who holds his values above anything else.  It's not so much about standing against authority no matter what.  Cap isn't a rebel without a cause.  It's about taking a stand on the occasion when the authority is wrong, which is a lesson we may need in America in the near future.    And this has been the way Cap is portrayed in most story arcs.  He gives up being Captain America at several points due to disagreement with those in power, he actively fights against them in Civil War, and he leads the effort to take down Iron Man in Time Runs Out, even as the world is literally collapsing around them.  We also see this in Winter Soldier in his determination to bring back the unbrainwashed Bucky, his unwavering support for Black Widow, and, most importantly, the decision to disband Shield entirely.  Even in the first movie, he leads a mission to rescue Bucky in direct defiance of his CO, and refuses to accept his 4F status from the government. 

As for a role model, let's talk about morality.  According to Kohlberg, probably the most prominent figure in the study of morality, the highest level of moral reasoning is to have your own code of values that are inviolable.  This is the 6th and highest stage of moral development.  For comparison's sake, obedience to authority and law is the fourth stage.  I think sticking to your principles is quite an admirable trait.  You think he's wrong, and I think he was right.  That's the point of the movie.  There really is no clear right or wrong.

This is also consistent with Cap in the comics.  Captain America is incredibly morally rigid in both the MCU and MU.  Captain America is a product of World War II, and a part of him still thinks of the world that way.  He came from an era where his enemies wore an insignia that practically screamed "I'm evil".  In the first Captain America, there are no shades of gray.  Cap is very good and Red Skull is very bad.  The rest of the movies, and the comics, are about how he deals with a world where morality is very flexible.  Iron Man is an embodiment of this.  He is a futurist.  He's all about adapting, changing, and evolving in terms of tech and morality.  This leads to conflicts between them, of which there have been many.  

And... if you wanted a movie about diplomacy and non-violence... I think you walked into the wrong movie.  It's a movie about Captain America.  And like pretty much any comic hero, he punches people... like alot... The movie didn't really make it a secret that super heroes are going to be punching eachother. Cap has never really had a problem with getting physical to defend his values.  He's a super soldier, not a super negotiator. He was, literally, created to solve problems by punching, kicking, and throwing shields.  Again, Cap is from World War 2, where problems were obvious and very punchable.  As I mentioned earlier, he sees things very much in a black and white sense.  That's not to say he is completely opposed to compromise, but he wouldn't compromise Bucky's life (so long as he believes Bucky is innocent) for anything.  

The "yay we all understand eachother" ending you wanted is the kind of thing I'd expect from a saturday moring cartoons.  It's simple and clean.  This is a world where not all problems can easily work out, and that makes being a hero far more challenging and therefore more inspiring to me. There did seem to be the potential for a compromise when Iron Man goes to Siberia, but that's ruined by Bucky killing his parents. And while they didn't have a hug it out everything's ok moment, they did have some degree of reconciliation and understanding.  Iron Man intentionally doesn't answer Ross' phone call to allow Steve to break the Avengers out of the raft, and Cap gives Iron Man the special Cap phone if he needs help (which will probably be in Infinity Wars).  

Again, I think your dislike of the movie seems to have more to do with your dislike of Captain America's ethics and personality than anything wrong with the movie itself.  You went to see a Captain America movie, and you're complaining that you don't agree with Cap's viewpoint.  Some people won't, which is why they have the other viewpoint represented.  Disagreeing with a character, or even a movie's message, does not make it a bad movie.  

The movie may not have been what you wanted, but it was an incredibly accurate depiction of Captain America.  The version of Captain America you have as a perfect paragon hasn't really existed for at least the past 25 years.  You may have wanted something else, but this was a Captain America movie.  It's akin to going to see Deadpool and complaining about the vulgarity and violence.  

And this seems to be a pattern.  You disliked Dark Knight because the cops were acting unethical, and you liked Sam Raimi's Spider-man which was very much inspired by the Stan Lee/Jack Kirby/Ditko era where morality was more straightforward and clean.  A large part of your enjoyment seems to derive from whether or not the characters who should be "good" are acting in accordance with your morality.  And that's fine, but I don't think the majority of people look at it that way, and it hardly makes the movie objectively bad.

How is what I'm suggesting a push?  General Ross clearly tells Tony that they have 36 hours until they hunt Captain America and his team.  Obviously if Tony joins with Cap he'll be a fugitive as well.  It's clear that Wakanda is going to want heads since the king is trying to murder Bucky throughout the whole movie.  I also believe they talked about Bucky being tried in Wakanda, which would be a sure death sentence, even if he was brought in alive.  I don't see what part of it is a stretch.

And if you think what I'm saying is clear for you in the movie, I'm not sure why you didn't address it in your OP, or why you're saying that I'm adding depth where there is none.

"And even though those conclusions of yours can indeed be drawn out from the picture, it simply is not what the movie has shown us."

This seems entirely contradictory.  Either my conclusions are backed up by the movie, or they aren't.  If they are, then the depth is there.  If it's not than it isn't.  How exactly are you determining that this depth is not really there?

We can't examine what was in the writer's heads (although you can check out some Russo Bros. interviews, so arguing about whether the depth was intended or not is kind of a nonsensical argument to have.  It's something that really isn't done in literary criticism.  Instead, you talk about whether or not a particular interpretation is supported by the text (or film in this case).  Either the interpretation is supported by the work, or it is not.  If it is not supported (see the Pixar theory) then the interpretation is not valid.  If it is supported than the interpretation is valid.  That's the best we can do.  We have no way to determine whether the depth was intentional or not, short of being able to mind read the writers and directors.

As for me losing my opportunity to take a compliment, I'll be quite fine without it. 

The writer of the original comics this was based on, Mark Millar, was very much a critic of George Bush's presidency.  Civil War was written as a critique of that. Some of it definitely carried over.  If you think it's bad in the movie, check out the comics.  It's about as subtle as a kick in the nuts.

First off, I sure wasn't looking for a movie about diplomacy and non-violence. I went to see a fun movie and ended up with a ludicrous one. That's the whole point of the OP.

Second, even the highest level of moral reasoning in one's own code of values cannot go against the public good. That's not up to debate. Admiting that as something positive is almost the same as trying to justify the violent terrorist acts that happen nowadays. Simply not possible.

Third, your point to explain that your view is not a push was: "General Ross clearly tells Tony that they have 36 hours until they hunt Captain America and his team". For you, that worked as enough reason for team IM to go against the former fellows. But who was Ross according to the movie? If you had not seen the 2 Hulks (I did and even so it told me nothing) there would be absolutely no clue as to why his orders should be followed. But the movie fails miserably in showing why one should consider him so powerful and important. My feeling was "why would Stark obey this creep? Is he  ALL the american government? Or, even more restrictly, does he represent ALL america's army? Is he the sole rep of the UN?" Would really there be a good reason for Stark simply not say "good luck trying" instead of doing what he decided to? You sure think so, but I don't, since he (Stark) is powerful and influentional enough to try and reach for other instances to avoid all the mess. The previous movies showed that (see how he handled the congress in IM 2). So, in another sense, the "tension" created by the directors was not verisimilar and did not work in a way that would make me buy it. That is the reason why I told you those conclusions of yours could indeed be drawn out from the picture. There is no contradiction. None at all to be exact.

But I do like where this debate is going.

What exactly do you mean by ludicrous?  As far as I can tell, that means the characters acted in ways you didn't really approve of.  I think it'd be hard to argue that the actions aren't justified from the characters points of view.

The reason Tony didn't just say "good luck" was clear too.  He actually believed in the Sokovia (sp?) accords mainly because he created a robot that almost destroyed the world.  He probably wouldn't have gone after Cap immediately, but the deadline pushed him towards that.

General Ross, I should say former General Ross, is the Secretary of State.  This isn't an inference, I'm 100% sure he said it point blank in the movie at least once, when he was introduced.  I'm semi-sure that they also referred to him as Secretary Ross many times.  He also mentioned that he was a former general, so even if you don't know what the secretary of state is, you should know that he's pretty up there in terms of power.

The secretary of State is probably the second most important person in regards to American foreign policy after the president.  They had the secretary of state handle this, cause the Sokovia incident was an international incident as was the explosion in Lagos.  Also, this was an accord between 170 nations, and enforcing the dictates of international agreements is part of his job.  The Secretary of state is also the fourth in line for the presidency, should the president die.

The secretary of state has the ear of the president.  He could, very likely, order the military to work on catching the Avengers. I feel that this was explicitly stated, but I'm not 100% on that.   Bucky at least was on shoot to kill orders.  After Cap tried to help a fugitive flee, Ross would also put shoot to kill orders on him and Falcon.  I can't recall specifically if he actually said that, but it's an easy jump to make.  If Iron Man didn't catch them before then, their lives were very much in danger.  

Iron Man didn't say "good like trying" cause it wouldn't have done any good.  At that point, Cap's team was composed of two people with super human strength, but not like Hulk strength.  They also had a guy with a bow and arrow, a guy who could fly, and one shield agent.  A conflict with the US army would not have gone well for them.  At best they'd have been captured anyway, at worst killed.  Even if they wouldn't be killed, Iron Man's objective was to help repair the Avengers reputation.  Having a bunch of Avengers fighting with the military wouldn't help matters.  And once Scarlet Witch joined Cap's side he REALLY couldn't let them get away.  She's really powerful, and it's not clear what she would have done if backed into a corner.

Ross' position may have went over your head because, I'm fairly sure, you aren't American, so you're probably not aware of the responsibilities of the president's cabinet (most Americans probably aren't either).  But, it would be very unnatural to try and fit an explanation of that in the movie.  All of the characters involved should all be aware of what the secretary of state is and does, so there'd be no way to really explain it in a way that wouldn't be clunky as hell.  

Nevertheless, I think his power and influence should be clear.  We know the kind of character Tony is, so we know how he'd act if Ross didn't have real authority.  I don't know why one would just assume that Tony was acting way out of character instead of reasoning that Ross did hold authority.  So Tony's cooperation is in itself a show of Ross' power.   It's also pretty clear just from the fact that he was the one sent to present the Sokovia accords that he's a pretty big deal.

As an aside, you don't thing Captain America is a role model cause he's fighting against authority.  What do you think of a man who lets his best friend be killed for a crime he didn't commit?