Assyria

That's true. The actual people today who are the decendents of the Assyrians are now Maronites, Syraics or have simply merged with other peoples.

Yes, the reference to a "Cedar Land" in the east has confused some who know about the Lebanon, however, according to the inscriptions of Sargon of Akkad, the region of the Lebanon was called the "Cedar Forest", and the mountains were called the "Silver Mountains", probably the western portion of the Taurus range, two separate designations.  Naram-Sin, however mentions in his inscriptions, "the Amanus, the Cedar Mountain". 

The reality is that there is a region in southwestern Iran which is a region of cedars.  I don't remember the name of the district, and it was Cyrus Shahmiri who told me where they were located. 

No.  The "Babylonian World Map" is concerned with a worldview with Babylon as its center.  It comprises "constellations" of real or mythical animals and the location of certain landmarks but nothing showing the ancient names of the "regions" outside of Babylonia.

This is what I've gathered.  According to Towards the Image of Tammuz, edited by William L. Moran, the end of the Third Ur Dynasty occurred by the joint attack by the Elamites and the Sua people, a mountain tribe located in the vicinity of Susa (AJSL, 1941, 220-221).  They therefore cannot be identified with the Sutians (Kramer, AS xii, 44-45), or with Subir/Subartu (Gelb, Crawford, Falkenstein, and Kramer).

As for the nomenclature of how the Sumerians designated their immediate neighbors, a hint comes in the form of a tradition of a legendary Sumerian king named Lugalanemundu, king of Adab, also mentioned in the Sumerian Kinglist.  According to the composition, he claimed to have received tribute from "Cedar Mountain" Land, Elam, Marhashi, Gutium, Subir, Martu, Sutium, and Eanna.  We already know that Elam and Marhashi were in the "east", hence "Cedar Mountain" Land must have also been in the east.  Gutium was in the northeast. Subir was in the north.  Martu and Sutium were in the "west", and Eanna (another name for Uruk) was in the "south".  We thus have a counter-clockwise reckoning of the lands (excluding Uruk) adjacent to Sumer.  Another thing we can obviously distinguish is that "Gutium", "Subir", and "Sutium" were understood to be different lands. 

The word "edin" (alternately, eden) has the Sumerian meaning of "plain", "steppe", and "grazing land".  Apparently the Sumerians used it as a geographic expresion for parts of the hinterland surrounding the city.  It was used as part of a proper name for very specific pieces of land.

Eridu was the name of the first city after the Flood where "kingship" was sent down.  In reality it seemed to have been the first settlement after the waters receded in Sumer to become a city.  Eridu has the possible meaning of "the good city", although other meanings are possible.

Since both terms "Eridu" and "edin/eden" are mutually distinct terms, neither is possibly related to the other.  However, what does seem to a parallel to the Biblical Eden was the Sumerian concept of "Dilmun" which was described as a paradise where the gods lived and where there was no death or disease and where predatory animals lived alongside their prey.  This concept of "Dilmun" does not necessarily relate to the historic Dilmun, although where it was located (Bahrein), makes it close enough to the Tigris and Euphrates to make it also close to other ancient riverbeds which have long since dried up.

I've never encountered it.

This was a piece of fine real-state (because of its fertility) fought over by two rival city-states in a space of about 100 years.  For most of this period, it seemed that the Lagash*tes had the upper hand, but the Ummaites ultimately got the last laugh. 

No clue.  Sorry. 

An hispanic.  My ancestors were from Mexico.

It would still be talking about the same person.  According to Dan. 11:40 "at the time of the end" the King of the South will attack the King of the North.  Since, up to this point, we know that these were the Ptolemaic and Seleucid kings of Egypt and the Middle East, respectively, the future Northern King must be ruling the Middle East, just as the Assyrians ruled the Middle East.  Hence, "the Assyrian" and Daniel's "King of the North" have a commonality.  Whether it is ethnological is hard to guess.

Perhaps I was being naive, but I didn't get the impression that he was asking for my position.  He merely related to my knowledge.  The possibility exists, but I would like to think that there wasn't more to this than what he wrote.

My interest in middle eastern history actually began with the simplest question.  How old is "history"?  In my basic conception (that of a 12-year-old) I measured "history" by "historical dates".  I had heard that Egypt and Babylonia had the "oldest history", so I began there (and never really left them, since).  This led to being impressed as to how varied civilization was in the Middle East, and not just a dry "line" of names and dates.  The "why" of things became just as important as the "who, what, and when".  Just when I thought I had a handle on the "behavior" and "scheme" of Middle Eastern history, to my utter shock and delight I discovered huge "new" sources of information, and a new appreciation as to how complex the ancient Middle East really was.  The search for more ME data continues.

One of the by-products of my initial question, was "where did peoples come from?".  The question had less to do with the biological origin theories, and more to do with ethno-linguistic origins.  I was immediately intrigued by the idea as to how similar Indo-European languages were despite their great geographical range.  I was not satisfied with general statements and looked for specifics.  The "why" of such complexity was just as important as the "why" of ancient ME history.  Even the "challenges" to the basic theory of IE dispersion were good tools to look into.  How some archaeological cultures seem to match specifics of the "dispersion" is intriguing.  We still lack specifics, and so this continues to be a subject of special interest.  The dynamics of the historically more documented Turkic dispersion has also been a subject of special interest.  It may hold clues to the IE dispersion.