cache from:
Digg - Nonintervention: The Original Foreign Policy
http:/
[1]digg
[2]Join Digg [3]About [4]Login
Username _______________ Password _______________ Remember? [_] Go
Search the News... ____________________ Search
[5]Popular [6]Upcoming
* [7]All
* [8]News
* [9]Videos
* [10]Podcasts
* [11]Customize
* [12]World & Business
* [13]Business & Finance
*
* [14]Political News
*
* [15]2008 U.S. Elections
*
* [16]Political Opinion
*
* [17]World News
*
* [18]Offbeat News
*
[19]Nonintervention: The Original Foreign Policy
This is a series of six YouTube videos of Ron Pauls speech at the
Future of Freedom Foundation conference in June.
Submitted:
99 days ago, made popular 99 days ago
Submitter:
[20]goldstandard71 [21]goldstandard71 (news: [22]submissions,
[23]diggs, [24]comments)
Topic:
[25]News » [26]World & Business » [27]Political Opinion
Source:
[28]lewrockwell.com
Share:
Share
Bury It:
[29]Bury
Favorite:
[30]Favorite?
* 864 diggs
* [31]digg it
* Comments (107)
* [32]Who Dugg or Blogged It?
* [33]Blog It
* [34]Email It
[sort by date (-4 or higher).]
[35]Hide Profanity [36]Expand Full Tree [37]Global Settings
* [below viewing threshold, [38]show comment] -22 diggs
d1ricks by [39]d1ricks on [40]06/19/2007
US Apparatchik readum and weep. Give up now, get productive jobs
and enjoy your later years.
[41]View 19 replies to this comment (most popular has 22 diggs)
* -2 diggs Bury Digg
linkin1 by [42]linkin1 on [43]06/19/2007
nonintervention policy...the policy america paid for in WWI & WWII
with thousands of soldiers.
[44]View 10 replies to this comment (most popular has 19 diggs)
* +2 diggs Bury Digg
SnowflakePillow by [45]SnowflakePillow on [46]06/19/2007
Well if Prescott Bush (W.s Grandfather / Bush Sr.s Father) and
the Rockefellers hadnt been funding and fueling the Nazi forces,
they never would have been able to bomb Britain and
non-intervention wouldve worked. Remember, non-intervention means
no help for either side not from your politicians, not from your
armies, NOT FROM YOUR RICH BANKING ELITE, not from anyone.
[47]View 2 replies to this comment (most popular has 9 diggs)
* [below viewing threshold, [48]show comment] -8 diggs
ragsmaloy by [49]ragsmaloy on [50]06/19/2007
Sorry, digg down this misplaced reply
[51]View 1 reply to this comment (most popular has 4 diggs)
* [below viewing threshold, [52]show comment] -8 diggs
bightchee by [53]bightchee on [54]06/19/2007
As if my bury as spam" muscles hadnt gotten enough of a workout
today. Ron Paul is not a prophet and no one person deserves this
much praise. None of what he is doing is going to have his face
end up next to Gandhi in an Apple store display window.
[55]View 7 replies to this comment (most popular has 7 diggs)
* +4 diggs Bury Digg
thcobbs by [56]thcobbs on [57]06/19/2007
Marshall plan anyone?
* +5 diggs Bury Digg
JamesWilson by [58]JamesWilson on [59]06/19/2007
Its the Prime Directive!
* [below viewing threshold, [60]show comment] -5 diggs
Octantis by [61]Octantis on [62]06/19/2007
Ron Paul said something. Digg it!
[63]View 1 reply to this comment (most popular has 13 diggs)
* [below viewing threshold, [64]show comment] -7 diggs
Bossobass by [65]Bossobass on [66]06/19/2007
>>>Well if Prescott Bush (W.s Grandfather / Bush Sr.s Father)
and the Rockefellers hadnt been funding and fueling the Nazi
forces, they never would have been able to bomb Britain and
non-intervention wouldve worked. Remember, non-intervention means
no help for either side not from your politicians, not from your
armies, NOT FROM YOUR RICH BANKING ELITE, not from anyone.
* [below viewing threshold, [67]show comment] -5 diggs
Bossobass by [68]Bossobass on [69]06/19/2007
>>>Well if Prescott Bush (W.s Grandfather / Bush Sr.s Father)
and the Rockefellers hadnt been funding and fueling the Nazi
forces, they never would have been able to bomb Britain and
non-intervention wouldve worked. Remember, non-intervention means
no help for either side not from your politicians, not from your
armies, NOT FROM YOUR RICH BANKING ELITE, not from anyone.
BINGO! Give that man a star.
Ask yourself how in hell Hitler got the money to build the biggest
armed force in history...in the depths of the Great Depression.
Study every coup, civil war, police action etc., since WWII and
youll find 2 striking similarities: 1) The involvement of our CIA
(Rockefellers hit squad) and 2) The bankers/arms dealers
financing and arming both sides.
No money, no arms...no war...period.
Bosso
[70]View 2 replies to this comment (most popular has 4 diggs)
* +3 diggs Bury Digg
BohicaTwentyTwo by [71]BohicaTwentyTwo on [72]06/19/2007
Why should the worlds only superpower have the same foreign
policy of an agrarian former colony? Please do not respond with an
Appeal to Authority.
[73]View 5 replies to this comment (most popular has 5 diggs)
* [below viewing threshold, [74]show comment] -5 diggs
oxigen by [75]oxigen on [76]06/19/2007
The only thing that worries me about Ron Paul is that he is a
libertarian, and as an anarchist, hes supposed to be my mortal
enemy. But he reasoning is clear, and Im certainly willing to
give him a chance. Although we may not agree on the issue of
capitalism, we both have one very strong view in common: the
reduction of government.
[77]View 4 replies to this comment (most popular has 5 diggs)
* -1 diggs Bury Digg
3tcp by [78]3tcp on [79]06/19/2007
auto-buried for lew rockwell
* +5 diggs Bury Digg
txpenguin by [80]txpenguin on [81]06/19/2007
Ron Paul believes in the Constitution, which is a far thing from
being an anarchist. He consistently practices what he preaches, as
is readily apparent from his voting record in Congress. Our policy
of intervening in the affairs of foreign countries, especially
since WWII, has gotten us into the mess we find ourselves in vis a
vis Iraq and Afghanistan. In all likelihood, we will be at war
with Iran before Bush leaves office. We have not won a single
major conflict since WWII, because Congress has ceded its power to
make war to the president. President Bush has made a mess out of
our foreign policy, and caused our military to be stretched to the
breaking point. It is not, however, entirely his fault. Congress,
with very few notable exceptions such as Congressman Paul, has
gone along for the ride in the hope of political gain. The results
of the no-win, undeclared and unconstitutional wars in Korea,
Vietnam, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Iraq should not surprise
anyone. When the going gets tough, too many Congressman get scared
and want to bail out. They never bother to think through the
downside of their fabulous little wars before they allow the
president to start them. This kind of foolishness will continue to
happen until we elect leaders who can return to the non
interventionist foreign policy of Washington, Jefferson and John
Quincy Adams. Some people like to parrot the canard that things
are different" because of 9/11. The truth is quite the opposite.
Our Founders were much wiser than the current crop of politicians
we are stuck with.
[82]View 1 reply to this comment (most popular has -2 diggs)
* +2 diggs Bury Digg
fuzzmeister by [83]fuzzmeister on [84]06/19/2007
Question: does said nonintervention apply to a situation, where,
say, North Korea attacked Japan?
[85]View 1 reply to this comment (most popular has 1 digg)
* +1 diggs Bury Digg
txpenguin by [86]txpenguin on [87]06/19/2007
If North Korea attacked Japan, Kim Jong Il would rue the day he
was born. The Japanese are fully capable of defending themselves,
as are the South Koreans.
[88]View 2 replies to this comment (most popular has 5 diggs)
* +2 diggs Bury Digg
txpenguin by [89]txpenguin on [90]06/19/2007
The Japanese maintain a small, but first class military in the
guise of a self defense force. They also have the technology to
manufacture nuclear weapons on very short notice (if they do not
have them already). Their martial tradition is still very strong.
Kim Jong Il knows this, and he would be met by a buzzsaw if he
were foolish enough to try to invade Japan. The Japanese might
take some significant losses at first, but soon or later they
would send lil Kim back from whence he came.
[91]View 2 replies to this comment (most popular has 3 diggs)
* +2 diggs Bury Digg
PatriotOne by [92]PatriotOne on [93]06/19/2007
Ron Paul advocates leading by example just as our founding fathers
advocated. By being a true free and democratic government and
being successful at it is what makes others want to emulate you.
You can not do it by being bullies and going over and killing
their people. It just causes the very people you are trying to
convert to hate the so-called free country.
Do you really think we are garnering the favor and respect of the
Iraqi people by killing their children, mothers and fathers? No
you fools...we are creating more people who hate us because we
killed their mother, father, child, brother, sister and friends.
For every person we kill, we probably create 10 more people who
hate us (they would now be defined as terrorists).
Do you really think we are being looked at as liberators now?
They want us out of their country! They kow we are securing their
oil. They know we are building an embassy larger than the Vatican
so we can permantly occupy them and look after the U.S. interests.
We are killing their loved ones. We are now killing the very
people that are now terrorists because we killed their family and
friends.
The reason Iraqis are not motivated to fight for their own
country is because its the U.S. they want out of Iraq, not other
Iraqis.
WE ARE THE TERRORISTS YOU FOOLS!
[94]View 2 replies to this comment (most popular has 1 digg)
* 0 diggs Bury Digg
txpenguin by [95]txpenguin on [96]06/19/2007
According to the CIA, Japan ranks number five in the world as to
defense spending. Their nuclear capability is highly developed,
and Japan could produce nuclear weapons in very short order (if
they do not have them already). They maintain a small, but first
class military in the guise of a self defense force. The North
Koreans, if they were foolish enough to invade, would inflict some
significant loses at first, but sooner or later, the Japanese
would send lil Kim back from whence he came.
[97]View 1 reply to this comment (most popular has 3 diggs)
* +1 diggs Bury Digg
txpenguin by [98]txpenguin on [99]06/19/2007
Why dont we address the real bugaboo that the
unilateralists/interventionists like to tout, and that is what
should we do if Iran attacks Israel? Tehran is not going to do it,
even if the Iranians develop a nookaler weapon. Why not? Because
it is a known fact that the Israelis have nuclear weapons that
number in the hundreds. They can be delivered via missile or
attack aircraft. In addition to that, if by some chance Iran
managed to mount a conventional or nuclear attack on Israel, the
Israelis have a significant second strike capability through
submarine launched nuclear warheads. If the Iranians are foolish
enough to seriously entertain the idea of attacking Israel, they
are doing so in the full knowledge that the Israelis can and will
reduce Tehran all major Iranian population centers to smoking
heaps of rubble in about 15 minutes. Israel needs no help from the
United States to destroy Iran.
* +1 diggs Bury Digg
aserer511 by [100]aserer511 on [101]06/19/2007
noninterventionalism=cruelty.
point in case: holocaust+darfur
[102]View 1 reply to this comment (most popular has -1 diggs)
* +2 diggs Bury Digg
WhiteRaven by [103]WhiteRaven on [104]06/19/2007
Nonintervention is functionally identical to pacifism and is
invalid for exactly the same reason. If any of the world chooses
to be interventionist", they have free reign to interfere
wherever they like without fear of reprisal.
The only way to be non-interventionist while maintaining
sovereignty is to be a client state protected under the umbrella
of an interventionist power... which of course calls into question
whether you are in fact sovereign.
Without the protection of a power that is willing to go forth and
head off looming threats, a isolationist state has no leverage to
use against trading partners, trading adversaries and aggressive,
ideological foes. Ultimately, a state can not prosper without both
having a stick" and being willing to use it beyond their borders.
The conflicts in the middle east are the result of both economics
(oil") and ideological aggression. And of course, the two feed
off each other. However, most pacifists and non-interventionists"
operate under the assumption that the stated expansionist goals of
militant Islamics are either simply hot air or are entirely
motivated by the perceived interference of the West in the
politics and faith of Muslims. However, the facts say otherwise.
How many simmering Islamic rebellions or, alternatively,
domineering Islamic regimes are there across Southeast Asia? And
while he root cause of so much of the violence in sub-Saharan
Africa may be tribal" but it is fed and nurtured by radical
Islamic ideology.
When the ideological threat of Islam couples with the economic
reality of oil, intervention becomes imperative. When Bin Laden
cites the pretense of western troops on holy soil, that is a handy
rallying point, NOT the fundamental motivation. Sure, as long as
Western powers have a presence in traditional Muslim lands, that
presence will be made a target and a motivational point. Were
those troops and corporations not there, the rallying point would
probably be the corrupting influence of global media (see Irans
most recent crackdown on pornography). The point is, the
fundamental motivation is to force the world to bow to the rule of
fundamental Islam.
By intervening in the region, we seek to sap the strength of the
movement at its core. We intervene because it is an efficient,
effective use of resources. Waiting for Islamic armies to grow and
nuclear arms to be produced is just stupid... and that is what the
non-interventionists would have us do. WE CAN NOT APPEASE RADICAL
IDEOLOGIES. Not without loosing everything we hold valuable. They
do not intend to respect our liberty, our life or our sovereignty.
Intervention is what is needed to protect our lives, our freedom
and our identity.
[105]View 8 replies to this comment (most popular has 3 diggs)
* +1 diggs Bury Digg
txpenguin by [106]txpenguin on [107]06/19/2007
According to Michael Scheurer, former head of the bin Laden Unit
at the CIA, Osama does indeed believe that the presence of
American and other non Islamic troops in Muslim lands is an
affront to Islam and thus the reason for his jihad against us. Our
life, liberty, etc. do not concern him. But what does Scheurer
know?
[108]View 1 reply to this comment (most popular has 0 diggs)
* -1 diggs Bury Digg
txpenguin by [109]txpenguin on [110]06/20/2007
My point is that we would be better off if we minded our own
business. Bin Laden made the point many times that he does not
fight against the US because he wants a global caliphate or
because he hates our freedoms. He wants us out of Saudi Arabia,
Iraq and Afghanistan. I, like Scheurer, am not a pacifist. A
nation has a right to self defense, and once the fight is joined
in self defense, it had better be to win. But if a nation
continuously goes abroad looking for monsters to destroy," as
John Quincy Adams put it, then from time to time it will get
burned. In the Middle East, since WWII, we have instigated a coup
against a democratically elected government (Iran, 1953), propped
up an oppressive monarchy (Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi in Iran,
1953-1978), armed and supported in Afghanistan what later became
the Taliban in their fight against the Soviet Union, supported
Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran (1980-1988), propped up a
corrupt and repressive monarchy in the Saudi royal family
(1946-the present), given billions to a corrupt and repressive
dictator in Egypt (Mubarak,1981-the present), invaded a sovereign
nation and occupied it against the will of its people (Iraq,
2003-the present), undermined a democratically elected government
in the Palestinian territories (Hamas), given virtually
unconditional support to Israel, regardless of what she does
(2000-the present), etc. Now that is just about as interventionist
as you can get. Have we as a nation benefited from all this
meddling in the affairs of Muslim nations? I submit that the
answer to that question is a resounding NO!
* -1 diggs Bury Digg
lifeasariver by [111]lifeasariver on [112]06/20/2007
so much noise, my head hurts...
Does anyone of you really think that the US policy will turn 180
degrees and thats it, game over, a thousand years of peace? The
only candidate that would actually try that would be Ron Paul but
hes chances are way too slim. And lets say he wins the
nomination and the general elections. What would the neocons do?
Say darn it, too bad we lost, thats life"? Or orchestrate
another false-flag attack that blame it on non-interventionist"
Ron Paul policies? Ron Paul is talking way too much against
Federal Reserve and dont forget 4 presidents have been already
killed for such blasphemy. All these libertarian ideas, that I
personally love, are just dreams folks, they are never gonna
happen. Vote for whoever you think deserves your vote but be
certain that in 8 years we all will have barcodes tattooed on our
necks or RFIDs in our skins. Dream of liberty because it is a
noble dream, but weve lost and theyve won. We have 8 years till
1984".
* +2 diggs Bury Digg
WhiteRaven by [113]WhiteRaven on [114]06/20/2007
@terr01
Islamic law is just part of their nationalistic structure, the
same way that Communism was for North Vietnam. It is the symptom
of the domestic power struggle, not the cause.
Militant Islam is a philosophy of life. It is a meme. It can be
transfered to new people in new regions. How many examples are
there of people born into non-Islamic countries and some
non-Muslim faith who have chosen to convert and engage is
militant, often violent behavior? Perhaps you are using the term
nationalism" in an extremely abstract sense. Do you simply mean
identifying with and feeling a sense of belonging with a group? If
so then yes, that is a significant part of militant Isam... as it
is a part with many, many philosophies and sub-cultures. But
calling that nationalism" both implies associations that dont
exist and makes it sound less threatening. To me, nationalism
requires a grounding in historic precedence and regional identity.
Militant Islam is far more dangerous. It has no center and no
limitation and has a core philosophy that encourages violence and
doesnt recognize the concept of innocents. By contrast, communism
recognizes central authority and, while it does tend to treat
human life as cheap, it does not welcome death or sacrifice with
the kind of eagerness Islam does.
And if they didnt disapprove, would you have argued that "it
shows how much they believe in Islam that they didnt care the
Kosovars were westernized?"
Huh? If they didnt disapprove then they simply wouldnt be a
threat to anyone. It is the adamant, violence-inspiring
disapproval of lifestyles that do not meet their standards that
makes them dangerous. It is why there is so much violence *among*
Muslims.
Like I said about "Al Queda Proper" (to distinguish against the
name-branding of Al Queda in Iraq"), Im not referring to the
mujahideen etc, the fighting edge" of the movements, but their
popular core which they require for any serious threats to the US.
(9/11 was something of a fluke with mixed results for Al Queda,
but thats another thread right there.
That fighting edge" is killing tens of thousands of people every
year. You want to ignore it? You think the false security of
isolationism is worth that price? Thats just not rational. You
are wrong, a popular core" is not necessary for this to be a
threat to the world. The facts are rubbing themselves in your
face. The events across the world taking place right this second
PROVE THE REALITY OF THE THREAT. Your heartless, short-sighted
disregard for the ongoing chaos and violence and fear and your
unbelievably naive belief that isolationism (which after all is
not the same as actual isolation which is simply not achievable in
the modern world) provides any protection from it simply isnt
rational. All the evidence is there for us, playing itself out
daily. There are people who want to destroy us and the nature of
the modern world gives them ample tools with which to do it. We
cant let them operate unfettered.
The core of the movement is (at least as spun to the populace)
defense, righting perceived wrongs, driving away the other",
regardless of the economic and personal costs, and thats
something that can be seen in any state.
No, you are factually incorrect. The theme is not driving out"
nor is it retaliation. It is punishment against those that defy
*God*. Sure, perceived wrongs are also cited but they have little
real bearing on the core motivation of the most dangerous and
active threats. Your problem is that you simply refuse to
recognize that this is all a matter of religious faith. By
insisting on viewing it as a form of nationalism, you gloss over
the true nature of the problem.
What we need to do is work in ways that support their domestic
opposition,
It is absolutely bizarre that you believe that the people involved
see support of domestic opposition as being functionally any
different from military strikes. You do realize that a major
motivating factor is the influence on Islamic *culture* that the
mere existence of the West is having, dont you? Military strikes
*kill the bad guys*. Your style of diplomatic/societal
intervention is actually more offensive and galvanizing while
having no actual beneficial impact. Your way motivates stoning in
the streets and death sentences against authors along with the
suicide bombings and general mayhem. And your way gains us nothing
in return.
* +1 diggs Bury Digg
txpenguin by [115]txpenguin on [116]06/20/2007
Islam, militant or otherwise, is not some monolithic way of life.
Before the US invaded Afghanistan, the Iranians did everything
they could to undermine the Taliban. The Taliban considered the
Shia of Iran apostates. The two peoples did not get along at all.
While the US supported the mujaheddin of Afghanistan against the
Soviets, those militant Islamic fighters considered the US a
friend and benefactor. I dont say that bin Laden individually was
ever a CIA asset" during the war against the Soviets in
Afghanistan, but he certainly was not at that time an enemy of the
United States. The militant Islamists in Afghanistan were
collectively our assets against the Soviets, and we openly used
them as such. What has consistently angered Muslims and motivated
them to take up arms against America is our occupation of their
lands. We are now perceived to be the inheritors of British and
Soviet imperialism. We are and have been over there" for quite
some time now. It should therefore come as no surprise that some
of those people, who happen to be Islamic, might want to come
over here" and kill us in reprisal. Consider what any loyal
American would do if faced with the prospect of the Chinese or any
other foreign power coming over here to change our way of life.
We are very close to attacking Iran over their refusal to
terminate their nuclear program, whether peaceful or otherwise.
The United States has troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and airbases in
Turkey. We have on station in the Persian Gulf two aircraft
carriers with attendant battle fleets. After hearing the bellicose
rhetoric of the Bush Administration against Iran, is it not
possible that the Iranians, militant Muslims or otherwise, are
mulling over what their defensive options might be? It might be
that they feel some (gasp!) nuclear deterrence is warranted given
these circumstances. Shirin Ebadi, the Nobel Prize winning female
Iranian poet and vociferous critic of the government of Iran, has
stated that if we want to radicalize the Iranian population and
induce them to rise up against us, there could be no better way
than to pick a fight with her nation. So by all means, lets go
ahead and bomb and invade Iran. Then, we can go on to Pakistan and
kill all of the radical Islamists there. But why stop in Pakistan?
On to Indonesia, the nation with the largest Muslim population.
Thailand and the Philippines await with their radical Islamic
fighters. Lets just keep on sticking our nose into every hornets
nest we can find while hoping the Chinese let us control the
entire Middle East and all of Southwest Asia. Im sure they wont
mind.
* -1 diggs Bury Digg
BenFranklin73 by [117]BenFranklin73 on [118]06/21/2007
Main Entry: in·ter·ven·tion·ism
Pronunciation: -ven(t)-sh&-ni-z&m
Function: noun
: the theory or practice of intervening; specifically :
governmental interference in economic affairs at home or in
political affairs of another country
Its amazing those you think that getting to involved in another
countrys affairs is a good thing?! Even our Founding Fathers
warned against including ourselves in the intrigues of other
nations. What good has come of our constant meddling...lives
snuffed out because of our countrys goals of Empire. When a real
threat to freedom ariseson our shores, of course we should take
action...but by no means should we bleed upon anothers soil for a
false sense of promoting Democracy. We are a Constitutional
Republic, and no democratic society has ever lasted for long. Even
now we are slipping headlong into a Fascist police state. Everyday
our Constitution is ignored, we have our own politicians calling
it a quaint piece of paper-a novelty. The President" himself has
called it, Just a god-damned piece of paper!" As far as WW 1 and
2 goes, the Banks made and still make profit off of war...our
government has been too complicit in the wars started. For
goodness-sakes LBJ lied about the Gulf of Tonkin becuase he wanted
us to get into the Southeast conflict. No we can help a country
out so far as it isnt costing us lives or treasure any who thinks
otherwise is a fool or willing to see his own freedoms soon gone.
Those are soon to be gone, Bush has passed every Act, Law or
signed any U.N. treaty to see to that. The Crusades were wrong
before and theyre just as wrong now!
* 0 diggs Bury Digg
shipple by [119]shipple on [120]06/21/2007
If you like Ron Paul, check out -- FreeStateProject*org --
* +1 diggs Bury Digg
P1d40n3 by [121]P1d40n3 on [122]06/22/2007
Total nonintervention is a pipe dream. With the US as the power
that it is, with globalism marching ever forward, the concept of
totally removing ourselves from the affairs of the world is
absurd. Were large, and like it or not, were kinda in charge, if
only in a first among equals way. That being said, should we NOT
be so damn nosy and bossy? Hell yeah. Our leaders need to learn
when to just stay out of over peoples shit. But total
nonintervention? It would never work.
* +2 diggs Bury Digg
Liam76 by [123]Liam76 on [124]06/22/2007
Nonintervention made sense when we were on across the ocean from
the countries we would be interfering with. Times have changed.
Things that go on on the opposite side fo the world can and do
have an immediate effect in our day to day lives. To not exert our
influence, or at least not to look out ofr interest and stop those
who are working against them will bite us in the ass.
Site Links
[125]Home
[126]Search Digg
[127]RSS Feeds
[128]Popular Archive
[129]Terms of Use, [130]Privacy
[131]Report a Website Bug
All About Digg
[132]About Us & [133]Contact
[134]Take a Tour
[135]How Digg Works
[136]Frequent Questions
[137]The Digg Blog
[138]Jobs at Digg
[139]Diggnation Podcast
Digg Tools & API
Check out [140]Digg Tools that let you integrate Digg into your
site and add Google features.
Develop your own tools with the [141]Digg API.
Digg Store
Get hats, shirts, hoodies, and more at the [142]Digg Store.
Advertise
You can buy advertising on Digg through our advertising partner
[143]Federated Media.
Digg Labs
Get a real-time look beneath the surface in the [144]digg labs
with our tools [145]arc, [146]swarm, [147]stack and
[148]bigspy. Also see [149]Digg Spy, our original real-time
tracking system.
Digg Widgets!
NEW! Show current Digg news on your blog or website with a
[150]Digg widget. Its super customizable.
[151]Digg Widgets!
© Digg Inc. 2007 -- User-posted content, unless source quoted, is
licensed under a [152]Creative Commons Public Domain License.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page
headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the
trademarks of Digg Inc.
References
Visible links
Hidden links:
[ close window ]