To: Emina

It's not simple, as distinct from simplistic-hysterical CNN-like b/w blah. And dates back to the Bosnian-Groatian affairs, when that "expert" in female interns decided to jerrybuild states. Before that was one "happy" FRY, run with an iron hand by Tito. I laugh, when some call him a communist. Neither he, nor the FRY were communistic. And
he was a Groat. Skipping some points. Peaceful successon of Bosnia and Groatia was agreed on and signed in Madrid. But, no. The "expert" was left out of the deal. And here come the different but handy amanpours to twist realities. Exactly "divide and conquer" tactics. "The world should unite against serbs!!!" He! What about North Korea, for instance, with far greater human rights violations, starvation, labor camps, and right this time? The trouble is, meddling like that with North Korea is dangerous - they are enough crazy and won't ask second questions to lob a couple of nukes in return, and getting nuclear China involved. Meddling with Saddam? It means further
alienating arab crude and gold (they are enough alienated already over the Iraq sanctions issue). South America? No-o-o, too local. Israel? God forbid! The mess would be greater, than N.Korea and China combined! Bomb Russia over Chechnya? (But he should order it according to his own speeches. Dubious irresponsible liar.) Here! Europe! A former multiethnic FRY in transition and powerless to fight an external aggression. Excellent. (BTH. Nothing worked as "planned". Both Bosnia and Groatia still in shambles politically and economically, accumulating debt like flies, with foreign troops still needed to be stationed, sucking US and European money needed at home, and with
hundreds of thousands of serb refugees conveniently forgotten by UN, UNHCR etc., all that is "inconvenient" and could pose uneasy questions, that's why we don't see that on CNN, BBC, ... .)
Re: "harvesting evil". It's not democracy - it's tribal behaviour.
Re: "democracy". Kosovo Albanians could have had that, had they responded positively to the calls to vote for the opposition. They kept silent, certain forces needed Milo to provoke a conflict.
And here, as a UNHCR man, comes William Walker with a big experience of stirring up trouble in Central America. Even a concervative Le Monde was shocked. A known scenario.
Seeds of evil are deeper. What we see is just that what grew out of political ambitions on rampage in Washington. Good, there's a J. Ramsey's commission, but will it work?
P.S. I really sympathize with Gen. Mike Jackson, speaking and looking an honest military to me, left to shovel dirt made by politicos, that dissappeared.

KISSIE.

1)One remark i am Bosnian, so i know to well about its problems.In that matter please don't underestamate me.I lived in the whole of (Ex yugoslavia) all my life.Still whatever has happened i know forgiveness.
2) This boards topic is about the situation in the FRY, so for discussing about the do's and don'ts in and about other countries this is simply not the place.
More simplistic its off topic

Emina

Another example were the church speaks openly against Milosevic.

PAVLE HOLDS MASS AT KOSOVO POLJE. Serbian Orthodox
Patriarch Pavle held a mass at a historic monastery on
28 June to mark the 610th anniversary of the Battle of
Kosovo Polje, where Ottoman forces defeated troops of
the medieval Serbian state and its allies. The Church
issued a statement to note that the commemoration this
year "differs from the previous ones: there will be no
hypocrisy in it, in its celebration the godless leaders
of our people will take no part," AP reported. Observers
note that the reference is to Yugoslav President
Slobodan Milosevic, who has often used commemorative
meetings at Kosovo Polje for his own political purposes.
The Church has never trusted Milosevic because of his
communist background.

Emina

I place this message, cause i also think its good to shed light on the other side of the coin, but on the other hand it is what Peter said before:
"sow violence and you will reap violence"
Although like i stated earlier there must be time for healing and allowing to heal will often bring forgiveness

---

'ANARCHY' IN KOSOVA. In several parts of Kosova over the
weekend, groups of ethnic Albanians looted and burned
Serbian apartments and homes, the "Frankfurter
Allgemeine Zeitung" reported on 28 June. Incidents of
lawlessness were so numerous that KFOR peacekeepers were
unable to control the situation. German KFOR officials
in Prizren on 27 June imposed a 12:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m.
curfew for all civilians in that town, RFE/RL's South
Slavic Service reported. In Peja, a spokesman for
Italian KFOR said that "uniformed Albanians" killed a
Serbian woman. In Mitrovica, tensions continued between
the Kosovar and Serbian communities, which are separated
by the Sitnica River, the "Berliner Zeitung" reported.

Emina

THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN!!
OF COURSE THERE ARE THOSE WHO RATHER NOT READ THIS.

CLARK CALLS FOR HELP. NATO Supreme Commander Europe
General Wesley Clark called on countries contributing
peacekeepers to KFOR to send their troops to Kosova as
soon as possible in the interests of restoring order
there, RFE/RL's South Slavic Service reported on 27
June. In New York, he told NBC Television that "in a
number of locations, it's clear that Serbian
paramilitaries, some with connections with intelligence
organizations, ...have remained behind" in Kosova.

Emina

WHO WAS IT THAT DENIED OPERATION HORSESHOE?????

DOCUMENTS LINK BELGRADE TO KILLINGS. Serbian forces
retreating from Kosova recently left behind "hundreds of
documents" that prove that the top leadership in
Belgrade meticulously planned the ethnic cleansing of
Kosova under the code name "Operation Horseshoe." That
operation has cost some 14,000 people their lives since
March. Most of the documents are now in the hands of the
Kosova Liberation Army (UCK), the London-based paper
"The Observer" reported on 27 June.

Emina

TO ALL.
My sis Zoja was not able to do her news gathering , so i took over.
HAPPY READING

Emina

TO PETE.
Thanks for helping me out there with these funny english terms.And sorry for MISSPELLING your name in one of the news pieces.
Emina

lady emina,


"14,000 killed since march"...measured from the beginning of march to the end of june, a bit over 100 a day...but the paperwork probably covers a shorter period of time, and fails to include the undocumented killngs...as simple as pulling a trigger, lighting a match...


prior to today, these affairs were an abstract to me. words in the newspaper, words on my monitor...i've meant what i said, but much of what i've said could be applied to a variety of world conflicts. all of these conflicts contain elements analogous to each other...war SUCKS. politicians LIE. murderous oppression is EVIL. innocents DIE.


did i say war SUCKS? just making sure.


but i learned certain things today that made this conflict PERSONAL. more than a battle of words such as conducted here. more than a list of the dead. there are people here among us whose loved ones have contributed to the list of the dead. there are people here who are HEROIC simply by virtue of being here. more than you know. more than I knew. more than a good-hearted person should ever have HAD to know.


may you never show your putrid fascist face here again, h'niq. what a stain upon humanity you are.


what a pre-programmed filthy LIAR you've been from the start. how can you live with yourself? what i'd REALLY prefer is that you DIDNT LIVE AT ALL. may you meet your maker soon...but it couldnt EVER be soon enough.


the point of writing this, seeing as h'niq's not here to receive the obscenity-laced assault i had planned for him, is to tell everyone present, in all sincerity, that there are HEROES among us.


that they wouldnt refer to themselves as such makes no difference. HEROES is what they are, and i am humbled and trivial in their presence. i say this from the bottom of my heart. if only, if only you knew.


and now we'll see whether this post arrives without being mangled by DMS


larry/L'menexe/DASLUD

By L'menexe on Monday, June 28, 1999 - 06:19 pm:
lady emina,


"14,000 killed since march"...measured from the beginning of march to the end of june, a bit over 100 a day...but the paperwork probably covers a shorter period of time, and fails to include the undocumented killngs...as simple as pulling a trigger, lighting a match...

*** I am sure your right about that remark, but thats the shortcoming of reporters and other organs.It's very hard to tell the real number of deaths. Also because this been going on for a long period of time.

Media counts from when the war in Bosnia started, but not the lives taken before that war.

Emina

Srpskom Vidovdanu!

Oj cujes li Srpski Vidovdane?
Dal' se secasna minule dane?
Kada Turci Srbe porobise.
Sest vekova i jos nesto vise,
Kad' se Srbi za pravdu borise.
Sest vekova prodje Vidovdane,
Al' jos Srbin vida teske rane.
Sest vekova dugacki su bili,
Srpsku veru nisu unistili.

Secas li se slavnije junaka?
Sto je Srpska zadojila majka.
Istorija pamti Srpske ptice,
Car Lazara, bracu Jugovice.
Zivote su za Kosovo dali,
Za krst casni i slobodu pali.
Car Lazar i devet Jugovica,
Slavni junak, Mios Obilica.

Na Kosovu tamno sunce sija,
Ponavlja se Srpska istorija,
Srpska krv se na Kosovu lije,
U kolevci Srpske istorije.
Sest vekova i jos vise prodje,
Novi dusman na Kosovo dodje.
Kao kuga mnoze se sve vise,
Jadan Srbin ne moze da dise.
Arnauti neka kuga nova,
Oterase Srbe sa Kosova.
Divlji Zapad, Siptari prokleti,
Hoce Srpsko Kosovo oteti.
Celom' Srpstvu zadadose jade,
Vidovdane, da li ima nade?

Na Kosovu Srpska krv se lije,
Celom' svetu, za to briga nije.
Svi dusmani Srpske krvi zedni,
A najvise Arnauti bedni.

Svaka sila k'o vihor ce proci,
Na Kosovo svi ce Srbi doci.
Osvanuce nova Srpska zora,
Pravda uvek pobediti mora.
Crven Bozur, istorisko cvece,
Na Kosovu, uvenuti nece.
Bozuri su procvetali prvi,
Sve crveni od junacke krvi.
Jos' ce lepse Bozur da procveta,
Celom' Srpstvu, na mnogaja leta.

SRBIN, "Janinac" Zarice Polje - Srbija

FAIR Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting 130 W. 25th Street New York, NY 10001

ACTION ALERT: Kosovars Vs. Kurds
Similar Crises Get Divergent Treatment in the New York Times

June 25, 1999

An article in the June 24 New York Times reported on the trial in Turkey of captured Kurdish guerrilla leader Abdullah Ocalan. The Times provided
background on the war between Kurdish separatist guerrillas and Turkish security forces:

"The war that Ocalan has waged has cost more than 30,000 lives and made him the object of intense hatred. It has also made him
a heroic figure to many Kurds who live in Turkey's southeast."

Contrast this description with the way the New York Times presents the background of another, very similar, separatist war (3/27/99):

"The Serbian campaign against the ethnic Albanians has seen more than 2,000 killed in the last year, with hundreds of thousands
of Kosovars driven from their homes, according to the United Nations."

The two news articles quoted above appear to assign responsibility for casualties in each war to one or the other side in the conflict: In the case of Turkey,
blame for the 30,000, mostly Kurdish, dead goes to the leader of the Kurdish rebels. In the case of Yugoslavia, blame for the 2,000, mostly ethnic Albanian,
dead is put squarely on the shoulders of the Serbian authorities putting down the rebellion.

This disparity is typical in Times coverage of the two conflicts. In an editorial on the Ocalan trial (6/24/99), the Times explained the Kurdish war:

"In response to Mr. Ocalan's violence, the country's armed forces have devastated Kurdish-inhabited areas of southeastern
Turkey, razing villages, and driving tens of thousands of refugees to Ankara and Istanbul."

On the other hand, in a March 24 editorial about NATO's bombing ("The Rationale for Air Strikes"), the Times' editoral writers describe the Kosovo conflict
this way:

"Serbian forces are shelling and burning villages, forcing tens of thousands to flee. They have also been killing ethnic Albanian
civilians."

In these editorials, the two very similar conflicts are described in very similar terms. But the editorial about Turkey makes it clear that the security forces are
acting "in response to Mr. Ocalan's violence"; whereas the editorial about Kosovo does not mention the existence of the Kosovar guerrillas at all. In fact, a
reader who knows nothing about the Kosovo conflict would have literally no inkling, from reading this editorial laying out "The Rationale for Air Strikes," that
an insurgency has ever taken place there.

Why the discrepancy?

The two conflicts are notable for the remarkable parallels between them. In each case, a local ethnic minority has seen its cultural, civil and human rights
abused by the central government. In each case, members of the minority responded by organizing an armed guerrilla force in their local territory, aimed at
secession and independence. In each case, the guerrillas used terrorism--e.g., sniping at police officers and civilians--to provoke a response from security
forces.

And in each case, the security forces responded with overwhelming force--brutally clearing out villages suspected of providing support to the rebels and
committing widespread human-rights abuses against civilians--all the while claiming they were merely preventing terrorists from threatening the territorial
integrity of their country.

In both countries, the human costs of both campaigns were enormous. When the New York Times published its description of the Kosovo campaign, in
addition to the 2,000 dead, an estimated 200 villages had been partly or completely destroyed, with approximately 450,000 people displaced in one year of
heavy fighting. In Turkey, according to Human Rights Watch, 35,000 people have been killed, while more than 3,000 villages have been destroyed, and an
estimated 2 million people have been displaced in 15 years of fighting.

But the two conflicts differ in one crucial respect: The U.S. militarily opposed Yugoslavia's actions in Kosovo. Turkey, on the other hand, is a close U.S. ally.
As a State Department official told reporters in 1992, when Turkey's human rights abuses were reaching a peak:

"There is no question of halting U.S. military assistance to Turkey. The U.S. sees nothing objectionable in a friendly or allied
country using American weapons to secure internal order or to repel an attack against its territorial unity."

Clearly the U.S. has a double standard when it comes to civil wars--but that doesn't mean that the New York Times ought to.


ACTION: Please write to the New York Times and ask them to use a single standard when covering similar situations. If the editors believe that the
Kurdish and Kosovo situations are fundamentally different, please ask them to explain what the differences are that deserve such markedly divergent
treatment.

Contact:
Andrew Rosenthal
Foreign Editor
andyr@nytimes.com

Humanitarian Hypocrisy

Professor Robert Hayden
Director, Center for Russian & East European Studies
University of Pittsburgh

In October 1998 NATO faced a dilemma:(1) while its member states were threatening air attacks(2) against Yugoslavia in response to Yugoslav
attacks on Kosovo Albanians, they also recognized that Kosovo is clearly within the sovereign territory of Yugoslavia. On March 24, 1999,
NATO resolved this dilemma by committing the first unprovoked, opposed military aggression in Europe since Soviet troops invaded Hungary
in 1956. The attacks were clearly contrary to international law and to the UN charter.(3) The aggression took the form of intensive bombing of
the Yugoslav "infrastructure," the first such massive use of air attacks in Europe since World War II. As of May 23, after 60 days of bombing,
NATO had mounted 7,000 air attacks on more than 500 targets, with munitions alone costing about $20 million per day. While Yugoslav
military casualty figures in the first 60 days of the attacks were estimated at being "in the hundreds," NATO had in that time killed as many as
1500 civilians.(4) Further, in the third week of May NATO began to commit textbook war crimes, aimed at depriving the civilian population of
Serbia of water and electrical power, and explicitly not aimed at military forces in Kosovo.(5)

Czech President Vaclav Havel has characterized NATO's war as one in which the alliance has "acted out of respect for human rights" and said
that it is probably the first war that has been waged "in the name of principles and values." He also said that even though NATO acted with no
authority from the UN Security Council, this violation of the UN Charter does not constitute an act of aggression or disrespect for international
law, but "happened, on the contrary, out of respect for the law, for a law that ranks higher than the law which protects the sovereignty of states":
human rights.(6) Yet the war supposedly in defense of human rights has produced war crimes by NATO, and a civilian casualty rate that is at
least three time higher than the casualty rate of the "intolerable" violations of human rights that NATO was supposedly acting to correct. This
article argues that this perversion of humanitarianism is the logical result of NATO's action, and that humanitarian catastrophes are likely to be
inevitable when the excuse of "humanitarian intervention" is used to justify aggression.


The Asserted Justifications for the NATO Attacks

"To Prevent a Humanitarian Disaster"

When he announced the NATO air attacks, on March 24, President Clinton said that he was doing so because Serbian forces were "moving
from village to village, shelling civilians and torching their houses."(7) Thus, NATO supposedly was attacking to "protect thousands of people in
Kosovo from a mounting military offensive."(8)

It is clear, however, that the wide Serbian offensive against Kosovo Albanians began after NATO's attacks began. As the U.S. State
Department itself admits, "In late March 1999, Serbian forces dramatically increased the scope and pace of their efforts, moving away from
selective targeting of towns and regions suspected of KLA sympathies."(9) In other words, Yugoslav forces, until NATO attacks on them
commenced, were fighting a guerrilla force, in much the same way that American forces had fought in Vietnam.(10)

If NATO had indeed begun its attacks to "prevent a greater catastrophe"(11) than what the State Department acknowledges to have been
"selective targeting" of places suspected of KLA activities, it clearly failed: the attacks provoked the wider Serbian offensive against ethnic
Albanians. This result was hardly unpredictable, and was in fact predicted by military and CIA analysts, but these predictions were ignored. In
addition, I had heard from administration sources, five days before NATO attacked, that while Clinton was committed to bombing Yugoslavia
there was literally no plan for what to do next, except to predict that Miloševi would surrender.

After the NATO attacks began and Serb forces began the massive expulsion of ethnic Albanians from Kosovo, the goal of the NATO action
supposedly switched to returning the refugees. However, the few reporters from Western media who were on the ground in Kosovo in April
and May reported that Albanians were by then leaving mainly because of the NATO bombing.(12) With each passing day, as NATO has
increased the destruction of Kosovo, more Albanians have left, and there has been less for them to return to: while Serbs have burned Albanian
houses, it is NATO that has destroyed the infrastructure of the place.

It is thus clear that NATO's actions have provoked a humanitarian disaster. The destruction of Serbia's infrastructure can only increase that
disaster.

"We Exhausted Every Diplomatic Effort for a Settlement"

In a New York Times article on May 23,(13) President Clinton announced that NATO had "exhausted every diplomatic effort for a settlement."
He had said in his March 24 speech that ""Serbian leaders ... refused even to discuss key elements of the peace agreement" that the US and
other countries had presented to them in Rambouillet, France.

It is certainly hypocritical for those who propose a "take it or leave it" deal to complain that the other side refused to negotiate, especially when
the supposedly obstinate party actually offered a counterproposal.(14) The Rambouillet documents, however, could not be acceptable to any
state. The political and constitutional sections followed the logic laid out in my December 1998 article in this journal, and would have rendered
Yugoslav and Serbian sovereignty in Kosovo fictive. The military implementation annex (Appendix B) was even more interesting. Under its
provisions, NATO would have had "free and unrestricted access throughout the FRY" (para. 8); NATO personnel would be immune from all
Yugoslav and Serbian legal processes and from "arrest, investigation or detention" (paras. 6, 7), but would be able to "detain" individuals and
turn them over to unspecified "appropriate authorities" (para. 21). While it has been suggested by some NATO sources that this military
implementation plan was patterned after that included in the Dayton agreement, the assertion is false: the agreement between NATO and the
FRY in Annex 1A of the Dayton agreement only granted NATO "free transit ... through the territory of the FRY" and did not authorize NATO
to "detain" anyone. Rambouillet, therefore, required that the Yugoslavs renounce sovereignty over a large part of their territory and submit to
occupation of the entire country by NATO, which they were hardly likely to accept.


The Legality of the NATO Attacks

There is literally no question but that NATO's attack on Yugoslavia violates the United Nations charter: the NATO attacks were never
authorized by the Security Council and could not by any stretch of the imagination be considered to have been in self-defense.(15) Interestingly,
some commentators who acknowledge this uncomfortable fact then argue that an exception to international law should perhaps be created for
what Antonio Cassese calls "humanitarian countermeasures," when, according to Bruno Simma, "imperative political and moral considerations
may appear to leave no choice but to act outside the law," or, as Vaclav Havel put it, to find a "higher law" to justify what international law
defines, clearly, as aggression. This acknowledgement of NATO illegality even by those supporting NATO's actions is noteworthy.


A War Against Civilians

Every time NATO bombs a hospital, bus, market, town center, apartment building or refugee convoy, NATO spokesmen assert that NATO
"never targets civilians" but that, while NATO's bombs are the most accurate in history, "collateral damage" is inevitable. However, NATO's
attacks have been aimed against civilian targets since literally the first night of the bombing, when a tractor factory in the Belgrade suburb of
Rakovica was destroyed by cruise missiles.(16) Since then NATO targets have included roads, railroad tracks and bridges hundreds of miles
from Kosovo, power plants, factories of many kinds, food processing and sugar processing plants, water pumping stations, cigarette factories,
central heating plants for civilian apartment blocks, television studios, post offices, non-military government administrative buildings, ski resorts,
government official residences, oil refineries, civilian airports, gas stations, and chemical plants. NATO's strategy is not to attack Yugoslavia's
army directly, but rather to destroy Yugoslavia itself, in order to weaken the army. With this strategy it is military losses that are "collateral
damage," because most of the attacks are aimed at civilian targets.(17)

Evidence that the attacks have targeted mainly civilians can be seen in casualty figures. As mentioned above, after 60 days of bombing and more
than 7,000 attacks, Serb military losses were "in the hundreds," while civilian casualties were as high as 1500 killed and 6000 wounded. NATO
claims that less than one percent of its bombs miss their targets, so if Serb civilian casualties outnumber military losses, the reason must be that
NATO is targeting civilians more than it is the military.

This strategy is hardly secret. The Wall Street Journal reported on April 27 that NATO had decided to attack "political, rather than just
military, targets in Serbia." On April 25, the Washington Times reported that NATO planned to hit "power generation plants and water
systems, taking the war directly to civilians." NATO generals told the Philadelphia Inquirer on May 21 that "Just focussing on fielded forces is
not enough ... . The people have to get to the point that their lights are turned off, their bridges are blocked so they can't get to work." Note that
the purpose of destroying these bridges is not military; but this was clear when NATO destroyed the bridges in Novi Sad, 500 km. from
Kosovo, installations which clearly did not make the "effective contribution to military action" in Kosovo that would have rendered them
legitimate targets under Article 52 of Protocol I additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

That NATO planned from the start to hit civilian targets was made clear to me a few days before the attacks began by an employee of a U.S.
intelligence organization who said that the CIA had been charged with preparing lists of Yugoslav economic assets and that, "basically,
everything in the country is a target unless it's taken off the list." This was nothing new: as Michael Walzer notes, in the Gulf War in 1990, "the
coalition decided (or the U. S. commanders decided) that the economic infrastructure of Iraqi society -- all of it -- was a legitimate military
target," and that while similar strategic targeting had been common in World War II, what was new was the attempt to deprive the Iraqi
population of clean water. However, Walzer notes drily, perhaps that "wasn't technically feasible in the 1940s."(18)

But it is technically feasible in the 1990s. On May 23, "fifteen NATO bombs hit water pumps ... in the northwestern town of Sremska Mitrovica
for the second night in a row."(19) Attacks on May 24 "slashed water reserves by damaging pumps and cutting electricity to the few pumps that
were still operative."(20) Only 30 percent of Belgrade's 2 million people had running water, and the city was down to 10 percent of its water
reserves.(21) That these attacks were not aimed at military operations in Kosovo is clear from the remarks attributed by the Washington Post to
a Pentagon official, who stated that the attacks had been limited to Serbia proper but that "NATO commanders are understood to be planning
to extend the attacks to Kosovo."(22) A more clear example of NATO's targeting civilians in Serbia rather than soldiers in Kosovo would be
hard to find.


NATO War Crimes

Depriving a civilian population of water is a textbook example of a violation of international humanitarian law, specifically of Article 54 of
Protocol I of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. As Aryeh Neier has noted, the U.N. War Crimes Commission that investigated the Bosnian war
concluded that attacking the civilian population was prima facie a war crime, and recommended that the commander of the Bosnian Serbs be
indicted for attacking the civilian population.(23) There would seem to be no doubt that NATO commanders and, presumably, at least some
NATO political leaders are guilty of war crimes on this count alone.

But this count is not alone. The level of damage done to clearly non-military infrastructural targets in Serbia would seem to render NATO
military commanders and at least some NATO political leaders liable to the same charge that was made against Ratko Mladi and Radovan
Karadi by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), "extensive destruction of property:" that they

individually and in concert with others planned, instigated, ordered or otherwise aided and abetted in the planning, preparation or execution of
the extensive, wanton and unlawful destruction of ... property, not justified by military necessity or knew or had reason to know that
subordinates were about to destroy or permit others to destroy ... property or had done so and failed to take necessary and reasonable
measures to prevent this destruction or to punish the perpetrators thereof."(24)

It is also likely that General Clark and NATO political leaders are liable for the charge of murder that was made against Yugoslav President
Miloševi on May 27, 1999, for, at the least, the bombing of the studios of Radio Television Serbia (RTS) on April 22, 1999. There is no
question but that the RTS studios were civilian targets: NATO spokesman Jamie Shea had stated as much in an April 12 1999 letter to the
general secretary of the International Federation of Journalists, noting that "television and radio towers are only struck if they are integrated into
military facilities."(25) No one has suggested that RTS studios played any military role. Indeed, NATO spokesman David Willoughby had stated
at NATO's news briefing on April 8 1999 that RTS would not be bombed if it broadcast Western news broadcasts for six hours per day, which
indicates clearly that there was no concern that the studios were integrated into the military. Bombing RTS was an intentional effort to widen the
war to civilian targets,(26) which resulted in the deaths of at least sixteen civilians.

The culpability of NATO military and political leaders in the ICTY would seem particularly clear since the Prosecutor of the Tribunal had in fact
warned NATO that it, too, is bound by the Geneva Conventions,(27) while Human Rights Watch had sent a letter to NATO's secretary general
expressing concern about specific violations by NATO of international humanitarian law.(28) NATO, however, seems unlikely to be overly
concerned. When questioned on May 16 about the possibility of NATO liability for war crimes before the ICTY, NATO spokesman Jamie
Shea said that "NATO is the friend of the Tribunal ... NATO countries are those that have provided the finances to set up the Tribunal, we are
among the majority financiers." He repeated the same message on May 17: NATO Countries "have established these tribunals... fund these
tribunals and ... support on a daily basis their activities." No, he did not anticipate indictments against NATO leaders or military personnel.(29)

The independence and impartiality of the ICTY was in any event utterly compromised by the indictment on May 27 of Yugoslav President
Miloševi and four of his political associates. While there is little question that Miloševi is guilty of war crimes, "justice" that is not impartial cannot
be seen as just. The failure of the Prosecutor to indict NATO or its clients would seem to confirm Jamie Shea's message that he who pays the
prosecutor determines who is charged. It is particularly noteworthy that while the Prosecutor has been reported unable to indict Croatian
generals for the 1995 ethnic cleansing of the Krajina because the U.S. government has refused to provide requested information,(30) she made
well publicized visits to American and British officials to gather information with which to indict Miloševi. When a Prosecutor who is a citizen of
one NATO country seeks assistance from the governments of other NATO countries in order to indict the President of the country that NATO
is attacking, not even the pretence of prosecutorial independence remains.


Humanitarian Hypocrisy

The "humanitarian intervention" in Kosovo has produced flagrant violations of international law and the UN Charter by NATO countries, turned
what had been a brutal repression of a brutal armed uprising into a humanitarian catastrophe, and produced the first massive bombings of a
European country since World War II, bombings which have been targeted mainly at civilian targets and many of which are prima facie war
crimes committed by NATO, the supposedly humanitarian interveners. At the same time, NATO's transformation of itself from a defensive
alliance into the first proud aggressor in Europe(31) since the Soviet Union's invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia has threatened to restart a
cold war, this time between "the West" and pretty much the rest of the world. As I write, former Russian Prime Minister Chernomyrdin, acting
as Russia's intermediary in the diplomacy surrounding the Kosovo crisis, found it necessary to directly contradict President Clinton's published
views on relations with Russia and to predict a new cold war in which Russia would be backed by other great powers, such as China and
India.(32)

The humanitarian catastrophe caused by actions like those of NATO in Yugoslavia seems inevitable, for several reasons. First, at the level of
international law, every nation has the right to defend itself against aggression. At the level of practical politics, a nation that is attacked will try to
resist the attacker. Winning the war thus requires defeating not only the army, but the nation: the civilian population. Thus the decision to attack a
sovereign state is, logically, a decision to attack the civilian population of that state, not just the military. NATO's targeting of the civilian
infrastructure of Serbia (and earlier, of Iraq), is thus logical, and the constant repetition that "NATO never targets civilians" is hypocritical,
presumably meant to obscure the uncomfortable fact that humanitarian intervention requires the committing of war crimes.

Of course, one may argue that the civilian population is a legitimate target because the nation as a body is guilty. Indeed, Clinton's eager
executioners in the New York Times(33) and The New Republic(34) have made such arguments, saying that, in Daniel Goldhagen's words, the
Serbian nation "clearly consists of individuals with damaged faculties of moral judgment and has sunk into a moral abyss from which it is unlikely
to emerge ... unaided."(35) This assertion ignores the inconvenient fact that Serbia's President Miloševi was never elected in a free and fair
election; that there were massive anti-Miloševi demonstrations in 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1996-97, while Richard Holbrooke continued to
negotiate with Miloševi while telling the oppostion not to boycot rigged elections; or that many of the main targets of NATO bombing (the cities
of Belgrade, Novi Sad, Kragujevac, aak and Niš) were centers of the democratic opposition to Miloševi, which had sought help from the West
with no success through March 24 1999 although now, apparently, NATO's bombs will raise them from their moral abyss. Of course, when one
advocates killing civilians it is surely comforting to suppose that they are not innocent.

The moral sleight-of-hand involved in humanitarian intervention is revealed by Havel, who finds the values of human rights to be powerful
because people are willing to die for them.(36) He thus seems to echo Gandhi, who is reputed to have said that while there were many causes
that he would willingly die for, there are none that he would kill for. NATO, however, is not willing to die for human rights, but rather to kill for
them, which is, after all, what humanitarian intervention is all about -- and what Havel applauds.

Finally, the most dangerous hypocrisy may be the rejection of international law for the arrogance of asserting that one respects higher laws.
Presumably, those who disagree are simply less enlightened, or less moral. In regard to Kosovo, NATO asserted that it could not ask for
Security Council approval because the Russians and the Chinese would not have given it -- thus implicitly saying that NATO is superior in
morality to the Russians and the Chinese. And yet, imagine what would have happened had NATO ignored the seductions of its superb
morality, and gone to the Security Council. Perhaps the Russians or the Chinese would have vetoed NATO's moral crusade, in which case, the
Serbs would probably still be engaged in their selective targeting of towns and regions suspected of KLA sympathies. And hundreds of
thousands of Kosovo Albanians who are now refugees would still be in their homes. And thousands of now-dead Kosovo Albanians would still
be alive. And thousands of Serb civilians would not be dead or wounded. And the stability of the Balkans would be much less threatened. And
NATO relations with Russia would not be degraded, or those with China. What a humanitarian catastrophe all of that would have been.

NOTES

1. EECR vol. 7 no. 4 (Fall 1998), pp. 45-50.

2. NATO officials, western diplomats and journalists prefer to use the term "air strikes" instead of "attack," but this euphemism should be
avoided: NATO is mounting aggressive military attacks. Further, while western journalists say that NATO has "pounded," "pummelled" and "hit"
targets, these pugilistic terms obscure NATO's real actions, which blow up targets with large quantities of high explosives, some of which
contain depleted uranium.

3. See Bruno Simma, "NATO, the UN and the Use of Force: Legal Aspects." European Journal of International Law, April 1999 (World
Wide web edition).

4. Figures on war activities, costs and losses from "The War So Far," The Times (London), World Wide Web edition, 23 May 1999.

5. See, e.g., "NATO Warplanes Jolt Yugoslav Power Grid," Washington Post, 25 May 1999: "The strikes have thus far been limited to
electrical facilities in Serbia proper ... but NATO commanders are understood to be planning to extend the attacks to Kosovo."

6. V. Havel, "Kosovo and the End of the Nation-State," The New York Review, June 10, 1999, p. 6.

7. Clinton speech of 24 March 1999, as published in New York Times, 25 March 1999; hereafter Clinton, March speech.

8. Id.

9. U.S. Department of State, Erasing History: Ethnic Cleansing in Kosovo (May 1999 [issued before May 12, 1999]), at 6; emphasis
added.

10. See discussion of the rules of engagement for American forces in Vietnam in M. Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars (2d ed., 1992).

11. President Clinton, first statement on NATO attacks, March 24, 1999, New York Times, March 25, 1999.

12. See, e.g., "Dispatch From Kosovo: Serbs Steer Many Refugees Toward Home," Los Angeles Times (World Wide Web Edition), April
21, 1999; "Fleeing Kosovars Dread Dangers of NATO Above, Serbs Below," New York Times 4 May 1991, p. 1; "Kosovo's Ravaged
Capital Staggers Back to Life," New York Times 5 May 1999, p. 1; "World: Europe: The Refugees Who Remained," BBC Online Network,
May 18, 1999.

13. "A Just and Necessary War," New York Times, May 23 1999.

14. Available at http:jurist.law.pitt.edu/kosovo.htm#Rambouillet, as are the other Rambouillet documents.

15. Simma, op. cit., A. Cassese"Ex iniuria ius oritur : Are We Moving towards International Legitimation of Forcible Humanitarian
Countermeasures in the world community?" European Journal of International Law, April 1999 (World Wide web edition).

16. I was informed of this destruction and its timing from highly reliable sources, who reported that the explosions blew the shutters off a house
that I have lived in in Rakovica.

17. See New York Times, April 30, 1999, p. 1 for some examples. A list of infrastructure damage between March 24 and April 19 compiled
by the European Movement in Serbia, a non-governmental group that was pro-Western before the war, was posted by MSNBC.COM on
April 26. Pictures of many destroyed buildings may be found on www.beograd.com, among other sources.

18. Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, p. xx.

19. Washington Post on line: 24 May 1999.

20. Washington Post, May 25, 1999, p. A1.

21. New York Times, May 25, 1999, p. A1.

22. Washington Post, May 25 1999, p. A1..

23. A. Neier, War Crimes, pp. 168-169.

24. Indictment of Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, ICTY, July 1995.

25. Shea letter available at www.ifj.org/hrights/natoreply.html.

26. Wall Street Journal, April 27 1999.

27. CBCNews Online, May 5, 1999.

28. Human Rights Watch Letter to NATO Secretary General Javier Solana, May 13, 1999; available at www.hrw.org.

29. Shea comments at NATO press conference, 16 May 1999, www.nato.int/kosovo/press/p990516b.htm; May 17 comments:

www.nato.int/kosovo/press/p990517b.htm

30. New York Times, 21 March 1999.

31. NATO's new strategic concept, released during the organization's fiftieth anniversary ceremonies in April 1999, would permit it to operate
outside of the territories of its members and in the absence of authorization by the UN Security Council -- in other words, to commit aggression,
as it has in Yugoslavia. See The Alliance's Strategic Concept, www.nato.int/docu/pr/1999/p99-065e.html. At least one NATO leader has
explicitly renounced the principle of non-interference: see speech by Tony Blair, April 22, 1999, at www.chicagotribune.com.

32. "Comment: Bombs Rule Out Talk of Peace," Washington Post, May 27, 1999, p. A13.

33. E.g., Anthony Lewis: killing civilians "is a price that has to be paid when a nation falls in behind a criminal leader" (New York Times, May
29, 1999, page A27). Earlier the Times' columnist Thomas Friedman had called for bombing Yugoslav water supplies, a textbook war crime,
and for causing the kind of wanton destruction for which Karadi and Mladi had been indicted.

34. E.g. D. Goldhagen, "A New Serbia," The New Republic, May 17 1999, asserting that Yugoslavia should be invaded and occupied,
ignoring completely the likelihood that such an action would result in the deaths of tens if not hundreds of thousands of Serbs but noting that the
costs to NATO would be "substantial:" Allied soldiers would die; the war and the occupation would be expensive in dollar terms."

35. Id.

36. Havel, op cit., page 6.

The One Where Everyone Finds Out


Written by: Alexa Junge
Transcribed by: Eric Aasen


[Scene: Monica and Rachel's, everyone is eating some Chinese food.]

Phoebe: (looking out the window) Oh hey, you guys, look! Ugly Naked Guy is putting stuff in boxes!

(They all run and join her at the window.)

Rachel: I'd say from the looks of it; our naked buddy is moving.

Ross: Ironically, most of the boxes seem to be labeled clothes.

Rachel: Ohh, I'm gonna miss that big old squishy butt.

Chandler: And we're done with the chicken fried rice.

Ross: Hey! Hey! If he's moving, maybe I should try to get his place!

All: Good idea! Yes!

Ross: It would be so cool to live across from you guys!

Joey: Hey, yeah! Then we could do that telephone thing! Y'know, you have a can, we have a can and it's connected by a string!

Chandler: Or we can do the actual telephone thing.

Opening Credits

[Scene: Ugly Naked Guy's apartment, Ross, Rachel, and Phoebe are checking out the place. Luckily, Ugly Naked Guy is nowhere to be seen.]

Ross: Oh my God! I love this apartment! Isn't it perfect?! I can't believe I never realized how great it is!

Rachel: Well that is because your eye immediately goes to the big naked man.

Phoebe: It's amazing! You better hurry up and fill out an application or I'm gonna beat you to it.

Ross: (laughing) Ohh. (Phoebe takes a couple of steps to the door and Ross quickly hurries out.)

Rachel: Well, I never thought I'd say this, but I'm gonna go use Ugly Naked Guy's bathroom. (Does so.)

Phoebe: (looking out the window) Oh, look! There's Monica and Chandler! (Starts yelling.) Hey! Hey, you guys! Hey! (Chandler and Monica start taking
each other's clothes off.) Ohh!! Ohh! Ahh-ahhh!!

Rachel: What?!

Phoebe: (screaming) Ahhh!! Chandler and Monica!! Chandler and Monica!!

Rachel: Oh my God!

Phoebe: CHANDLER AND MONICA!!!!

Rachel: OH MY GOD!!!

Phoebe: OH!! MY EYES!!! MY EYES!!!!

Rachel: Phoebe!! Phoebe!! It's okay!! It's okay!!

Phoebe: NO! THEY'RE DOING IT!!!

Rachel: I KNOW!! I KNOW!! I KNOW!

Phoebe: YOU KNOW?!!!

Rachel: Yes, I know! And Joey knows! But Ross doesn't know so you have to stop screaming!!

Ross: (entering) What's going on?

Phoebe and Rachel: Ohhh!!!

Rachel: (trying to divert his attention from the window by jumping up and down) HI!! Hi!

Ross: What?! What?!

Rachel: Nothing! Oh God, we're just so excited that you want to get this apartment!

Ross: Actually, it looks really good. (Turns towards the window and now Phoebe starts jumping to divert his attention.)

Phoebe: (Screaming incoherently.) Get in here!!! (Motions to join her and Rachel.)

(Ross starts jumping and screaming incoherently and hops over and joins in on the group hug.)

[Scene: Central Perk, Phoebe and Rachel are there talking about Chandler and Monica.]

Phoebe: You mean whenever Monica and Chandler where like y'know doing laundry or going grocery shopping or—Oh! All that time Monica spent on the
phone with sad Linda from camp!

Rachel: Uh-huh, doing it. Doing it. Phone doing it.

Phoebe: Oh! Oh, I can't believe it! I mean I think it's great! For him. She might be able to do better.

Joey: (entering) Hey guys!

Rachel: Joey! Come here! Come here!

Joey: What? What?

Rachel: Phoebe just found out about Monica and Chandler.

Joey: You mean how they're friends and nothing more? (Glares at Rachel.)

Rachel: No. Joey, she knows! We were at Ugly Naked Guy's apartment and we saw them doing it through the window. (Joey gasps) Actually, we saw
them doing it up against the window.

Phoebe: Okay, so now they know that you know and they don't know that Rachel knows?

Joey: Yes, but y'know what? It doesn't matter who knows what. Now, enough of us know that we can just tell them that we know! Then all the lying and
the secrets would finally be over!

Phoebe: Or, we could not tell them we know and have a little fun of our own.

Rachel: Wh-what do you mean?

Phoebe: Well y'know every time that they say that like they're doing laundry we'll just give them a bunch of laundry to do.

Rachel: Ohhh, I-I would enjoy that!

Joey: No-no-no! No-no wait Rach, you know what would even be more fun? Telling them.

Rachel: Ehhh, no, I wanna do Phoebe's thing.

Joey: I can't take any…

Phoebe: No! You don't have to do anything! Just don't tell them that we know!

Joey: Noo! I can't take any more secrets! (To Rachel) I've got your secrets. I've got their secrets. I got secrets of my own y'know!

Rachel: You don't have any secrets!

Joey: Oh yeah? Well, you don't know about Hugsy, my bedtime penguin pal. (Joey shies away.)

Rachel: (To Phoebe) So umm, how-how are we gonna mess with them?

Joey: Ugh.

Phoebe: Well, you could use your position y'know as the roommate.

Rachel: Okay.

Phoebe: And then. I would use y'know the strongest tool at my disposal. My sexuality.

Chandler: (entering) Hello children!

All: Hey!

Phoebe: Okay, watch, learn, and don't eat my cookie.

(She gets up and goes over to Chandler who's ordering some coffee from Gunther.)

Chandler: Hey.

Phoebe: Hey! Ooh, wow that jacket looks great on you!

Chandler: Really?

Phoebe: (feels his arm) Yeah the material feels so soft—hello Mr. Bicep! Have you been working out?

Chandler: Well, I try to y'know, squeeze things. (Phoebe giggles uncontrollably.) Are you okay?

Phoebe: Well, if you really wanna know, I'm—Oh! I can't tell you this.

Chandler: Phoebe, it's me. You can tell me anything.

Phoebe: Well actually you're the one person I can't tell this too. And the one person I want to the most.

Chandler: What's going on?

Phoebe: I think it's just y'know that I haven't been with a guy in so long and how sometimes you're looking for something and you just don’t even see that it's
right there in front of you sipping coffee—Oh no, have I said to much? Well it's just something to think about. I know I will.

(She makes a show of bending over to get her coat and showing off her bum. She then walks out, leaving no one to eat her cookie.)

[Scene: Chandler's bedroom, Chandler and Monica are there, of course. Like who else would it be, duh!]

Monica: You are so cute! How did you get to be so cute?

Chandler: Well, my Grandfather was Swedish and my Grandmother was actually a tiny little bunny.

Monica: Okay, now you're even cuter!!

Chandler: Y'know that is a popular opinion today I must say.

Monica: What?

Chandler: The weirdest thing happened at the coffee house, I think, I think Phoebe was hitting on me.

Monica: What are you talking about?

Chandler: I'm telling you I think Phoebe thinks I'm foxy.

Monica: That's not possible!

Chandler: Ow!

Monica: I'm sorry it's just, Phoebe just always thought you were, you were charming in a, in a sexless kind of way.

Chandler: Oh, y'know I-I can't hear that enough.

Monica: I'm sorry, I think that you just misunderstood her.

Chandler: No, I didn't misunderstand, okay? She was all over me! She touched my bicep for crying out loud!

Monica: This bicep?

Chandler: Well it's not flexed right now!

[Scene: Monica and Rachel's, Monica, Rachel, Phoebe, and Chandler are there. Monica is entering from her room.]

Rachel: Hey Mon, what are you doing now? Wanna come see a movie with us?

Monica: Uhh, y'know actually I was gonna do some laundry.

Rachel: Oh.

Monica: Hey Chandler, wanna do it with me?

Chandler: Sure, I'll do it with ya.

Monica: Okay.

Rachel: Okay great, hold on a sec! (She runs to her room and returns carrying a huge bag of laundry.) Oh, here you go! You don't mind do ya? That would
really help me out a lot! Thanks!

Monica: I mean I-I don't I think I have enough quarters.

Phoebe: I have quarters! (She holds up a bag of quarters.)

Ross: (entering) Hey!

Rachel: Hey Ross! Any word on the apartment yet?

Ross: Well, I called over there and it turns out Ugly Naked Guy is subletting it himself and he's already had like a hundred applicants.

Rachel: Oh.

Ross: No-no, I got the edge. I know it's not exactly ethical but I sent him a little bribe to

tip the scales in my direction. Check it out, you can probably see it from the window. (They all head to the window.)

Monica: Oh, is it that pinball machine with the big bow on it?

Ross: No.

Chandler: That new mountain bike?

Ross: No.

Monica: Well what did you send?

Ross: A basket of mini-muffins.

Phoebe: But there's a whole table of mini-muffin baskets. Which one did you send?

Ross: The small one.

Rachel: What?! You-you actually thought that basket was gonna get you the apartment?

Ross: Well yeah! Someone sent us a basket at work once and people went crazy over those little muffins. It was the best day.

Chandler: Your work makes me sad.

Ross: Oh man! I want that place so much!! I was so sure that was gonna work! There's twelve bucks I'll never see again! (Exits.)

Rachel: All right honey, we'd better go if we wanna catch that movie.

Monica: Bye!

All: Bye!

Phoebe: Bye Chandler! (She walks up to him.) (Quietly.) I miss you already. (She pinches his butt.)

Chandler: (after they've left) Okay, did you see that?! With the inappropriate and the pinching!!

Monica: Actually, I did!

Chandler: Okay, so now do you believe that she's attracted to me?

Monica: Ohhh, oh my God! Oh my God! She knows about us!

Chandler: Are you serious?

Monica: Phoebe knows and she's just trying to freak us out! That's the only explanation for it!

Chandler: (a little hurt) Okay but what about y'know my pinchable butt and my bulging biceps—She knows!

Commercial Break

[Scene: Chandler, Joey, and Ross's, Joey is snoozing with Hugsy, his bedtime penguin pal and Chandler and Monica come storming in.]

Chandler: (entering) Joey!

(Joey quickly tries to hide Hugsy by throwing it over his head.)

Joey: Yeah?

Chandler: Phoebe knows about us!

Joey: Well I didn't tell them!

Monica: Them?! Who's them?

Joey: Uhhh, Phoebe and Joey.

Monica: Joey!

Joey: And Rachel. I would've told you but they made me promise not to tell!

Chandler: Oh man!

Joey: I'm sorry! But hey, it's over now, right? Because you can tell them that you know they know and I can go back to knowing absolutely nothing!

Monica: Unless…

Joey: No! Not unless! Look this must end now!

Monica: Oh man, they think they are so slick messing with us! But see they don't know that we know that they know! So…

Chandler: Ahh yes, the messers become the messies!

[Scene: Monica and Rachel's, Ross is looking at Ugly Naked Guy's apartment through binoculars.]

Ross: Noooo.

Rachel: Oh Ross, honey you gotta stop torturing yourself!

Phoebe: Yeah, why don't you just find another apartment?

Ross: Look I've already looked at like a thousand apartments this month and none of them even compares to that one!

Rachel: Y'know what you should do?

Ross: Huh?

Rachel: You should find out what his hobbies are and then use that to bond with him. Yeah! Like if I would strike up a conversation about say umm,
sandwiches. Or uh, or my underwear.

Joey: I'm listening.

Rachel: (To Ross) See?

Ross: That is a great idea! And! I know Ugly Naked Guy because we've been watching him for like five years so that gives me back my edge! Oh, let's see
now he had the trampoline.

Phoebe: He broke that.

Ross: Well, he had gravity boots.

Rachel: Yeah, he broke those too.

Joey: So he likes to break stuff.

Ross: Okay, I've got to go pick up Ben but I-I will figure something out. (He opens the door and stops.) Hey, didn't he used to have a cat?

Phoebe: I wouldn't bring that up, it would probably just bum him out.

Joey: Yeah, poor cat, never saw that big butt coming.

Ross: Right. (Exits.)

(The phone rings and Rachel answers it.)

Rachel: Hello! (Listens) Oh yeah! Hey! Hold on a second she's right here! (To Phoebe) It's Chandler.

Phoebe: (in a sexy voice) Oh? (Takes the phone from Rachel.) Hello you.

Chandler: Hello Phoebe, I've been thinking about you all day. (He's holding the phone so that Monica can hear it as well.)

Phoebe: Eh?

Chandler: Well you know that thing you said before, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't intrigued.

Phoebe: Really?

Chandler: Yeah, listen, Joey isn't gonna be here tonight so why don't you come over and I'll let you uh, feel my bicep. Or maybe more.

Phoebe: I'll have to get back to you on that. Okay, bye! (Hangs up.) Oh my God! He wants me to come over and feel his bicep and more!

Rachel: Are you kidding?!

Phoebe: No!

Rachel: I can not believe he would do that to Mon—Whoa! (She stops suddenly and slowly turns to point at Joey. Joey is avoiding her eyes.) Joey, do they
know that we know?

Joey: No.

Rachel: Joey!

Joey: They know you know.

Rachel: Ugh, I knew it! Oh I cannot believe those two!

Phoebe: God, they thought they can mess with us! They're trying to mess with us?! They don't know that we know they know we know! (Joey just shakes
his head.) Joey, you can't say anything!

Joey: I couldn't even if I wanted too.

[Scene: Outside Ugly Naked Guy's apartment, Ross is knocks on the door and Ugly Naked Guy answers it. He's ugly. He's naked. And he's holding a huge
jumbo soda.]

Ross: Good evening, sir. My name is Ross Geller. I'm one of the people who applied for the apartment. And I-I realize that the competition is fierce
but—I'm sorry. I, I can't help but notice you're naked and (He claps his hands.) I applaud you. Man, I wish I was naked. I mean, this-this looks so great.
That is how God intended it.

[Scene: Monica and Rachel's, Chandler and Monica and Rachel and Phoebe are planning their respective strategies to break the other pairing. Joey is not
amused.

Monica: (in the kitchen with Chandler) Look at them, they're-they're panicked!

Chandler: Oh yeah, they're totally gonna back down!

Monica: Oh yeah!

[Cut to Phoebe and Rachel sitting on the couch.]

Phoebe: All right. All right! If he wants a date? He's gonna get a date. All right, I'm gonna go in.

Rachel: All right. Be sexy.

Phoebe: (laughs) Please.

(She saunters over to Chandler with a mean pair of 'Come hither' eyes and she glares at Monica.)

Phoebe: So Chandler, I-I'd love to come by tonight.

Chandler: (initially worried, but gets over it) Really?

Phoebe: Oh absolutely. Shall we say, around seven?

Chandler: Yes.

Phoebe: Good. I'm really looking forward to you and me having sexual intercourse.

(As she walks away, Chandler mouths a scream to Monica. How motions and mouths, "It's okay, it's okay.")

Joey: (looking out the window) Hey-hey, check it out! Check it out! Ugly Naked Guy has a naked friend!

(They all run over to the window.)

Rachel: Oh yeah! (She gasps.) Oh my God! That is our friend! (Monica covers her face.) It's Naked Ross! (Monica turns and buries her face in Chandler's
shoulder.)

All: Yeah, it is! Naked Ross!!

[Scene: Monica and Rachel's, Rachel is getting Phoebe ready for her date.]

Rachel: Show time!

Phoebe: Okay, Rachel, get me perfume!

Rachel: Okay! (She runs to get some.)

Phoebe: And Joey, get me a bottle of wine and glasses? (He begrudgingly does so.)

(In the meantime, Rachel has returned with the perfume and sprays a mist out in front of Phoebe who walks through the mist and does a little spin.)

[Cut to Chandler, Joey, and Ross's, Monica is getting Chandler ready for his half of the plan.]

Monica: All right, it'll be great! You just make her think you wanna have sex with her! It'll totally freak her out!

Chandler: Okay, listen, how far am I gonna have to go with her?

Monica: Relax, she-she's gonna give in way before you do!

Chandler: How do you know?!

Monica: Because you're on my team! And my team always wins!

Chandler: At this?!

Monica: Just go get some! (Kisses him.) Go! (She runs to hide in the bathroom.)

[Cut to the hallway, Phoebe is outside getting some last minute instructions from Rachel.]

Rachel: (handing her the wine) Okay honey, now I'm gonna try to listen from right here!

Phoebe: Okay.

Rachel: Okay? Whoa, wait! (She undoes one button on Phoebe's dress.)

Phoebe: Good idea!

Rachel: Yeah, oh wait! (She goes for another one.)

Phoebe: Oh now, don't give away the farm!

(Phoebe knocks on the door with the wine and Chandler answers it. Rachel hides next to the door.)

Chandler: Phoebe.

Phoebe: Chandler.

Chandler: Come on in.

Phoebe: I was going too. (They go inside and he closes the door.) Umm, I brought some wine. Would you like some?

Chandler: Sure.

(She makes a big show out of pulling out the cork and pours the wine.)

Phoebe: So, here we are. Nervous?

Chandler: Me? No. You?

Phoebe: No, I want this to happen.

Chandler: So do I.

(They click their glasses and take a sip. That sip turns into a gulp, which quickly progresses into their mutual draining of their glasses at once.)

Chandler: I'm gonna put on some music.

Phoebe: Maybe, maybe I'll dance for you. (She starts doing a rather suggestive and seductive dance that's silly at the same time.)

Chandler: You look good.

Phoebe: Thanks! Y'know, that when you say things like that it makes me wanna rip that sweater vest right off!

Chandler: Well, why don't we move this into the bedroom?

Phoebe: Really?

Chandler: Oh, do you not want to?

Phoebe: No. No! It's just y'know first, I wanna take off all my clothes and have you rub lotion on me.

Chandler: (swallowing hard) Well that would be nice. I'll go get the lotion.

[Cut to the bathroom, Chandler is entering.]

Chandler: Listen, this is totally getting out of hand! Okay? She wants me to put lotion on her!

Monica: She's bluffing!

Chandler: Look, she's not backing down! She went like this! (He does a little mimic of her dance.)

[Cut to the hallway where Phoebe is conferring with Rachel.]

Phoebe: He's not backing down. He went to get lotion.

Joey: (entering the hall) Oh man! Aren't you guys done yet?! I wanna sit in my chair!

Rachel: Joey look, just look at it this way, the sooner Phoebe breaks Chandler the sooner this is all over and out in the open.

Joey: Ooh!

Rachel: Okay!

Joey: I like that! (To Phoebe) Oh, okay! Show him your bra! He's afraid of bras! Can't work 'em! (He swiftly rips open the front of Phoebe's dress
revealing her bra.)

Phoebe: Joey! (Examining the dress.) Wow, you didn’t rip off any buttons.

Joey: It's not my first time.

[Cut to the bathroom.]

Monica: You go back out there and you seduce her till she cracks!

Chandler: Okay, give me a second! (Pause) Did you clean up in here?

Monica: Of course.

[Cut back to the living room. Chandler slowly exits the bathroom and gets pushed from behind by Monica and sees Phoebe closing the apartment door.)

Chandler: Oh, you're-you're going?

Phoebe: Umm, not without you, lover. (She slowly walks over to him and is showcasing her bra.) So, this is my bra.

Chandler: (swallowing hard) It's very, very nice. Well, come here. I'm very were gonna be having all the sex.

Phoebe: You should be. I'm very bendy. (Pause) I'm gonna kiss you now.

Chandler: Not if I kiss you first.

(They move closer to together and Phoebe hesitantly puts her hand on Chandler's hip. He puts his hand on her left hip but then decides to put his hand on her
left hip. Phoebe then grabs his butt. Chandler goes for her breast, but stops and puts his hand on her shoulder.)

Phoebe: Ooh.

Chandler: Well, I guess there's nothing left for us to do but-but kiss.

Phoebe: Here it comes. Our first kiss.

(They slowly and hesitantly move their lips together and kiss gently. Phoebe has her eyes wide open in shock and Chandler is squinting. He finally breaks the
kiss after only a short while and pushes Phoebe away.)

Chandler: Okay! Okay! Okay! You win! You win!! I can't have sex with ya!

Phoebe: And why not?!

Chandler: Because I'm in love with Monica!!

Phoebe: You're-you're what?!

(Monica comes out of the bathroom like a bolt, and Rachel and Joey both enter.)

Chandler: Love her! That's right, I…LOVE…HER!!! I love her!! (They walk together and hug.) I love you, Monica.

Monica: I love you too Chandler. (They kiss.)

Phoebe: I just—I thought you guys were doing it, I didn't know you were in love!

Joey: Dude!

Chandler: And hats off to Phoebe. Quite a competitor. (Pause) And might I say your breasts are still showing.

Phoebe: God! (She turns and buttons up.)

Joey: All right! So that's it! It's over! Everybody knows!

Monica: Well actually, Ross doesn't.

Chandler: Yes, and we'd appreciate it if no one told him yet.

(Joey suddenly gets very angry.)

Ending Credits

[Scene: Ross's new apartment, he is showing his boss, Dr. Ledbetter his new place and new outlook on life.]

Ross: A new place for a new Ross. I'm gonna have you and all the guys from work over once it's y'know, furnished.

Dr. Ledbetter: I must say it's nice to see you back on your feet.

Ross: Well I am that. And that whole rage thing is definitely behind me.

Dr. Ledbetter: I wonder if its time for you to rejoin our team at the museum?

Ross: Oh Donald that-that would be great. I am totally ready to come back to work. I—What? (He notices something through the window.) No! Wh…
What are you doing?!! (Dr. Ledbetter is slowly backing away.) GET OFF MY SISTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!

End