Yes it would have. And Moiraine has straight out said that she would see them dead rather than let the Shadow have them. Which means either they believe that it will have different repercussions, or that Moiraine is Black Ajah.



Completely irrelevant. Intention does not matter in this argument.



You argument here is that Saving the world justifies burning the inn. The ends justifying the means. Which is the complete opposite of Lan's argument, the means justifying the ends.



But they did choose to go to a city where they could be spotted by Darkfriends. They did choose to stay at the Stag and Lion, knowing that the Shadow was after them and that they might bring devastation there just as they did in Emond's Field. They chose to go anyway.



Given Lan's argument, the importance of that particular sandwich is determined by the price that has to be paid to obtain it. Because that sandwich cannot be obtained without a war, it is far more valuable than any other.



No, again you're inverting to the far more coherent 'the end justifies the means', and ignoring Lan's actual argument.



That he cannot obtain that sandwich without war is inherent to the hypothetical. That he cannot have another sandwich is inherent to Lan's idiotic idea, because no other sandwich would have a greater price, therefore no sandwich would be more worth paying the price for.



No, and neither could the warmonger.



Of course it doesn't. That's because the argument is idiotic, which was my point all along.