I fail to see the relevance of this.



You fail to see the importance of the exclusive rights. It doesn't give Egwene the right to deal with monarchs, as you said, she already had that. No, it forbids the Hall from dealing with monarchs and forbids them from officially questioning Egwene's decisions regarding her dealings with said monarchs. It's the exclusivity that was the gain here.



You both see things too much in black and white, and in the short term. Just because the Black Ajah Hunters are the only group totally devoted to her neither means that everyone else is against her, nor that this will always be the case. There may be times when she has more support in the Hall, and there may be times when she has less. The only certain thing that this has changed regarding Egwene's power is that she can never be excluded. And that is a gain. But don't take it from me. Since you take Egwene's word as sacred, here's what she had to say about it: "So long as it was possible for the Hall to meet in relative secret, my authority - the authority of the Amyrlin Seat - could be circumvented. Now, if they wish to maneuver, they'll have to do it in front of my face." A Call to Stand, emphasis mine.



Wait, Egwene says "I know you are loyal to Rand" and you interpret this as "I will not try to subvert your loyalties?" That's quite a jump. Needless to say that I won't make it. The Oaths do not apply to fanciful interpretations of Aes Sedai's words.



Again, that's quite a leap you took there. This deal will instantly make all these groups trust each other? I find that quite dubious. And as usual, you have no facts to support it. And even if that were true, it makes no difference to the Last Battle.



Then why are you arguing at all? Do you somehow think that I am unaware that Elayne has a motivation for doing things? Of course she does! She wouldn't be doing them otherwise! Are you seriously trying to convince me you're participating in this thread only to convince me that people do things for reasons? If that is so, then you can rest easy, I am quite aware of that. However, a noteboard might have done better. This was, after all, a thread discussing how Egwene and Elayne have displayed selfish desire for power on the eve of Tarmon Gai'don and how it is hypocritical that we should be expected to cheer them on when we were expected to scorn other nobles for doing the same thing throughout the series.

Or do you believe that those nobles did not have a motivation for seeking power?



I suggest you reread the book. Elayne's primary goal is the prosperity of Andor. The secondary goal is the Last Battle.



Ghealdan has been part of Perrin's forces since Alliandre swore to him in The Path of Daggers. The Two Rivers have been since The Shadow Rising. I assume you will believe me when I say that Perrin will fight the Shadow at the Last Battle? Cairhien has been part of Rand's forces since The Fires of Heaven. I assume you will also believe me when I say Rand will fight the Shadow at the Last Battle? That leaves only Andor, and if Andor wasn't going to fight at the last battle, then consuming the three previous countries isn't going to help the Last Battle, it's going to hinder it.



What in Tassadar's name are you even talking about? This section doesn't begin to make sense.



Quotes or it didn't happen.



You have only your own assertion for that. Andor sudden expansion swallowing of its neighbours sure seems like it has goals of expansion.



No. No she doesn't. This is explicitly clear, she takes them from rivals. Again, from Elayne herself: "They should not be killed for supporting someone else for the throne. There can be no treason where there is no Queen." And furthermore, the punishment for treason is death. The land goes to the heirs. Elayne steals the land that rightfully belongs to the family of the alleged criminal, not to the criminal itself. She has no right to seize their lands. You can't just make stuff up every time reality doesn't fit your desires.



I have quotes proving she was preparing for war with the Two Rivers. I have quotes proving that she was willing to execute Perrin and start that war. You have nothing.



You don't know what a strawman argument is, do you?

You also have trouble remembering what it is you are supposed to be talking about. Either that, or realising that you cannot win the argument in question, you try to change the subject. This example, like the one below, demonstrate how the use of external threats can be used to justify many, many actions. It only represents a position that you hold in that you keep using the Last Battle and the Seanchan to excuse the characters' power seeking. This is not, in any way, a strawman.

A strawman is a misrepresentation of the opponent's arguments, and then countering the misrepresentation rather than the argument itself. For example, you accuse me of not "digging deeper into Colavaere's motivations". That is a strawman. Colavaere's motivations are completely irrelevant to my argument, and yet this is what you choose to attack. My argument was that even if you can use external threats to justify unacceptable acts, those remain unacceptable acts. How does Colavaere's motivations have anything to do with this? How does Colavaere's associations have anything to do with this?

I may have to stop using analogies, since you seem to take them quite literally, which is a bit disconcerting given your ability to make incomprehensible leaps of logic. So for the sake of clarification, Colavaere was not justified in her takeover, she didn't know Elayne was in Altara, didn't take the throne merely because Elayne was absent, and she was in no way preparing for the Last Battle or using it as an excuse for her takeover.



So was Cairhien.