Machado may be bravely fighting for democracy against a corrupt and brutal dictatorship, which is certainly commendable, and she's clearly a darn sight better than Maduro. But given some of her political positions, I don't think she was really a great choice for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Some of Machado's other positions don't inspire much confidence, either. Like Maduro, she supports irredentist claims to the Essequibo region of Guyana, although she's against seizing it by force. And she has aligned herself with right-wing populist parties such as Vox in Europe.

And, to be honest, I doubt Trump is upset about Machado winning. She supports his policies, including bombing boats off the Venezuelan coast, and would apparently support a U.S. invasion of Venezuela to overthrow Nicolas Maduro. She's even partly dedicated her prize to Trump.

People are celebrating because Trump didn't win, even though he was never a serious candidate to begin with. In reality he had about as much chance of being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize as Vladimir Putin, ISIS, or Emperor Palpatine.

It makes no sense to claim to support a two-state solution if you're only willing to recognise one state. And it's disingenuous to claim that recognition has triggered Israel's recent actions in the West Bank, when Israel has been trying to take over the West Bank and undermine the PA for years.

Were any of these acts of government brutality ordered by the "stupid and evil man" mentioned by the OP, or the regime he heads? I have no problem with treating government brutality as a measure of evil. How about you?

Yep. I'd guarantee that Turkey and Saudi Arabia are already making plans to get nuclear weapons, and other countries are sure to follow.

Indeed, we are worse off now, and the effect of the air strikes on Saturday is probably the exact opposite of their claimed objective.

This should make us question their real purpose.

It's clear what Bibi and US neocons actually want to achieve, and it should be obvious how air strikes fit in.

It is in this context that Mark Rutte, the Secretary General of NATO, sent this utterly nauseating letter to Trump, praising him for making everyone 'safer'.
How can Rutte lead NATO if he writes this about a highly reckless act that could have serious repercussions for the organisation he leads?

The air strikes again Iran threaten to set in motion a chain of events that could, potentially, not only plunge much of Europe and the Middle East into a devastating war in the relatively near future, but they could effectively destroy NATO.

Imagine if Putin decided to attack one of the Baltic states or Sweden while the U.S. was tied up in Iran. Would there even be any point in invoking Article 5? European members might answer the call, though even that's far from certain, but the U.S., clearly, would not.

It would obviously be in Putin's interests to divide NATO and lure its most powerful member into a dangerous war in the Middle East, while Russia continues to seize swathes of territory belonging to its neighbours in Europe.

What makes the prospect of a war in Iran particularly troubling is that Trump's decision to attack may have been influenced in part by Vladimir Putin, who he clearly admires, even though Putin presumably views him as a mere tool and looks on him with contempt.

Given that most NATO members are already threatened to some degree by a revanchist Russia, it's unlikely they'd be willing to join any war in the Middle East at the present time. They need to shore up security in Europe and dramatically increase support for Ukraine.