Jeffro, I don't recall you providing documentation showing how the verses of Daniel accurately matter he Seleucid period, though you urge us to accept that Daniel is about the Seleucid period. Perhaps you have studied the history of the Seleucids, but I know virtually nothing about the Seleucids (though I took a college course in ancient world history, which included content about the Greeks) and I suspect that other readers (at least those who think the book was written in the 6th century or possibly written then) on this topic thread also know nearly nothing about them. Except for a few cases I thus don't see what you call "obvious references to the Seleucid period", so please document to me and others (including scholar) evidence of the alleged obviousness to the Seleucid period.
Making assertions, even repeatedly, without documentation/proof does not sway me to abandon my long held views and become convinced in the assertions. I need evidence instead. I have some evidence in some of the commentary books I own, but I it is not very detailed on a verse by verse basis. Furthermore, those same commentaries also say some of the verses do not fit well the Seleucids and they say some of the verses might refer to Rome.
I am much more familiar with the Roman empire than with the Seleucid kingdom. If you wish to convince me and others 100% that Daniel refers to the Seleucid period and that none of it refers to the Rome (or the Roman empire) or has no similarity to the Roman empire, please refer us to a commentary which interprets Daniel verse by verse as having reference to the Seleucids and no reference to Rome.
From what I learned about the Roman Empire (from movies, scholarly documentaries, and history books) the Roman Empire fits extremely well the description in Daniel 2:40 about the 4th kingdom.