Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: energyplay who wrote (13612)	1/19/2007 1:42:43 AM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 219207

It can be the case that death of participants, and subsequent distribution of the expropriated properties to their heirs, will make solution more difficult or impossible. If this case helps one of the parties, which is not the US, the US wants to get the international lawyers discuss the issue before the participants start dying. Remember that it started 1979, almost 30 years passed. US trying to precipitate the starting of the discussions by use of those artifacts we read in the pressure. Deep deep down there the issue is money!! Big huge amount of money. Past money and money still to be made. We have to look to the issue under the perspective of games nations play with each other. "US might then extend an olive branch to Iran" If Iran is ready to come out to discuss the Sheraton and Hilton hotels, Amoco etc etc etc -expropriated after 1979- compensation. And the Iranian would also want to discuss what the US did with the frozen funds. There's even cases US awarded frozen funds as compensation to some agravated Iranian parties as the money was his. It is a matter for law firms, specialized in international law, to make a few millions of a period of a decade.