Last year, a U.S. District Court in Manhattan secretly froze $2 billion held in a Citigroup (C) account. The money was believed to have been held on behalf of Iran, through Luxembourg's Clearstream Banking S.A. In what the Wall Street Journal reports could be the largest seizure of Iranian assets abroad since the Islamic revolution of 1979, several parties are lining up to claim the cash. And, it looks like the battle is headed for trial.

The order to freeze the funds was executed 18 months ago by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and hasn't been made public. In issuing the legal order, the court used information from the U.S. Treasury Department. Though the money is frozen, the struggle is heating up.

When you're serving your country, there's a good chance you'll move around a few times . . . which can conflict with the traditional American dream of homeownership. Soldiers who bought homes several years ago could be stuck selling now at depressed prices -- and on fairly short notice.

Needless to say, the financial pressure can be profound. A Staff Sergeant with a decade of service behind him, for example, is paid just under $37,000 a year. Even when you add in the health care and other benefits provided by the Department of Defense, it's still hard to handle a serious loss on a home.

The February stimulus plan included provisions to help military personnel in this situation, but little has happened. Soldiers complain that information is hard to find and guidelines aren't available. So far, none of the funds have been disbursed, and the federal government is keeping its collective mouth shut.

The comments on a recent blog post by Sarah Gilbert, about Starbucks retraining efforts took an interesting turn towards discussion about whether or not that company supports our troops. This seems to be a subject which elicits strong passion among many blog readers, which prompts me to ask this question of you: Does a company's position, openly declared or not, regarding support for our troops, affect your perception of that company and whether or not you'll intentionally do business with them?

This issue can be difficult to assess, because often times a company's position on the matter is cloaked, unavailable or skewed by misinformation. The comments on Sarah's blog post give clear evidence of that. Some folks seem convinced that Starbucks doesn't care about our troops, yet packages bearing its logo are reported to arrive at military addresses every day. What's more is the fact that often companies elect not to state a position regarding our restructuring efforts in Iraq. To some people, silence on the matter is interpreted as contempt rather than consent.

I must admit that my own opinions about individual companies regarding their stance on our military involvements are sometimes colored by unconfirmed email commentary and careless internet banter. That is why I generally refrain from discussing the issue. What about you? Do you base your opinions on random emails which purport to reveal a company's stance regarding our military, or do you research the topic before coming to your conclusions?