Vulnerable Leaders: Bilingual.

THIS IS AN OPINION PIECE. OPINIONS OF THE AUTHOR DO NOT REFLECT WHAT THE INQUIRER BELIEVES AS AN ORGANIZATION.

ENGLISH:

Disputes are a constant feature of human life, ranging from petty arguments over who left the lights on to the massive scale of war, where entire nations clash in the pursuit of power. But just how cruel is war? Imagine this: thousands of bullets soaring through the air, their sharp, whistling sound a constant reminder that death is always close. The battlefield is a horrifying sight, a suffocating cloud of dust, blood, and despair, where the only guarantees are that someone will die and someone will emerge victorious, if victory is even the right word.

This suffering could easily be avoided. But then we would lose the eloquent speeches of our esteemed leaders, who assure us that while war may be tragic, it is, in their words, "an unfortunate but necessary evil." Beautiful words, aren’t they? Don’t be fooled. Such rhetoric is nothing more than a finely crafted lie to keep people in line. When war breaks out, it is not just the soldiers who live in fear; it is everyone. Ordinary citizens, the so-called "silent majority," are left to live in a world where their lives are disposable, swept aside in the name of political games. The poor are not just collateral damage; they are the very currency of war. So why do we endure such horrors? Is it to purge the lower classes in the name of nationalism? Or do those in power simply have no regard for the lives of ordinary people, seeing them as mere pawns in a game they play from their ivory towers? Perhaps "slaves" is a more accurate term.

Consider Hitler, for example. His name is etched in history not as a man, but as a demon. He instigated World War II, slaughtering millions of innocent Jews under the guise of "ethnic purity." Then there is Matsui Iwane, the architect of the Nanjing Massacre, whose actions unleashed unspeakable horrors on a defenseless population, tortures so grotesque that even the most twisted minds would recoil. This is what war is: state-sanctioned mass murder, glorified by those who profit from it. And still, after such atrocities, we are asked to believe that war is justified "for the greater good." Are we really supposed to believe that?

Let me make this clear: there are no winners in war. No amount of propaganda, no polished speeches can change that. War, in any form, is inherently wrong and it should never happen. Yet, if despite all reason, war must persist, let us at least have the decency to redefine what war truly is.

Wars are fought by leaders, those paragons of wisdom whose judgment is so unparalleled that we are expected to follow them without question. But why, I ask, should we allow them to send others to die for their whims? Why not have the leaders themselves fight the battles they so eagerly send us to? Let them choose the location: a field, a city square, or even a corporate boardroom—and settle the matter with their own hands. Wouldn’t that be a far more efficient and honest way to resolve global disputes?

Here is an idea: let’s divide the conflict into two categories. First, physical combat, like boxing, judo, or a good old-fashioned duel; and second, intellectual combat—debates, speeches, or heated arguments. Imagine watching these world leaders, the so-called defenders of their nations, engage in a contest of words or fisticuffs, all for the world to witness. It would be a far cry from the anonymous deaths of soldiers in distant lands. In fact, it would likely be more entertaining and just as effective. They could sell tickets, stream it live on the internet, and we, the people, could contribute a small fee to witness the bravery of our great leaders firsthand. After all, what is better than watching the architects of war actually fight in it themselves? A front-row seat to history, complete with popcorn.

Now picture it: these leaders, rolling up their sleeves, flexing their muscles—each one sporting a rather prominent beer belly, a testament to their wisdom and courage. Their smooth, flawless skin, untouched by the grime of battle, would surely give them the upper hand over the frail, battle-worn soldiers they send off to fight. Imagine them triumphing in such a contest, not only resolving disputes but also bringing joy to the masses with their sheer spectacle. If they are truly serious about "winning" wars, this would be the most logical and enjoyable way to do it. The common people would be thrilled to part with their hard-earned money to watch their leaders put their money where their mouths are.

By now, we have all seen the wreckage of both World Wars—torn countries, broken families, and the shattered lives of millions. The devastation is clear to anyone with a conscience. If war is truly unavoidable, then it should never come at the expense of the very people a leader is meant to protect. If a leader cannot even guarantee the safety of their citizens, then what exactly are they leading? If the lives of the people are not their highest priority, they have failed at the most fundamental duty of leadership. A leader who cannot protect their own people should resign—and preferably try their hand at something more suited to their skills. Perhaps selling sweet potatoes on the street might be a more fitting occupation.

In the end, war has no true winners. Only the suffering masses and the calculating elites, who profit from the pain of others. But if we cannot stop war altogether, then perhaps we should consider this new proposal: let the leaders fight their own wars, and let us, the people, watch the spectacle. At least then, we might enjoy the show.

CHINESE:

无形的奴隶们

李昕珂

    争执无处不在，小到以吵架的方式输出，大到可以发起一场残酷的战争。

战争有多么残酷？请闭上眼睛想象，无数的子弹在空中穿梭，时刻的威胁着所有战士的生命。肃杀和悲伤覆盖了乌烟瘴气的战场。在残酷的战争里只有生或死，输或赢。

    这些苦难本不必发生。政治领袖们通常会搬出这样一套说辞：“虽然战争带来的危害很大，但它却十分必要。”无论他们说得多么天花乱坠，也只是为了给人民洗脑。当战争来临时，平百姓和军人时刻生活在恐慌之中，生命时刻会受到威胁。严重到是要死人，而且造成很多地层人民牺牲，搞不懂战争为何重要？难道是他们为了消灭底层人民而创造出的阴谋吗？或者，他们根本不顾平民的性命，只把他们看做奴隶？

    希特勒，想必每个人都熟知这个名字。他是一个人，更是一个恶魔，他发起了第二次世界大战，屠杀了无数无辜的犹太人。还有松井石根，南京大屠杀的主谋，人间恶魔，毫无理由开启了南京大屠杀，并且创造了太多毫无人性的酷刑。这就是战争，或许就是一种变相的合法杀人。看看这样的惨剧，你们还有脸给战争打上为了国家好的标签？

    我不想猜忌太多，但有一点我无比清楚，“战争没有获胜者”，无论怎么美化，战争都是不对的，并且根本就没有必要发生。如果现在还废除不了战争，那不妨来重新定义一下何是战争?

首先，战争是领导人指挥的，那么他们应该是最有智慧的，所有人都得听他们的智慧。不如让要发起战争的各国领导人，自己亲自出手，选一个地方，击败对方，岂不是更加痛快？其次，让我们把比拼分为两种形式，一种是物理攻击如：拳击、柔道和武功；或者第二种，选择精神攻击，比如：辩论、演讲或者吵架，随他们怎么做。方法这么多，他们可以随便选择，只要是他们亲自“打仗”就好了。这样不仅确保了老百姓的安全，还省下了这些领导人要一层一层传达指令的时间。这多好呀。 

    我们再想象一下，那些领导人们赤膊上阵，一个个挺着那圆润的啤酒肚，露出娇嫩并且无暇的皮肤，表现得状态一定会比那些干瘪憔悴的士兵强。在这么好的状态下比拼，不仅可以解决纠纷，还具有观赏性。如果他们愿意，还可以卖票或者直播，我们百姓很高兴为他们的英勇，贡献一点流量或者一张门票钱。

    经历了第一次世界大战、第二次世界大战，大家都已经清楚地知道战争的危害。如果战争真的必须开启，也不应该威胁到人民的安全。作为国家领导人，保护人民是他的职责。如果他连人民的性命都无法确保，那就是不称职，并且失去了初始作为以为领导人的初衷。

    我记得听过一句话“当官不为民做主，不如回家卖红薯”。很有道理。