"...Those who do not want to recognize a German socialism do not have the right to call themselves national. Only he who emphasizes German socialism is truly national. He who refuses to speak of socialism, who believes in socialism only in the Marxist sense, or to whom the word 'socialism' has an unpleasant ring, has not understood the deepest meaning of nationalism. ...If by "democratic-republican rule" you are referring to our sorry domestic state, I certainly do not deny that fact. These are the enablers of foreign enemies, take note, while the identity of these foreign enemies does not change.
"Marxist socialism was degraded to a concern only with pay or the stomach. The bourgeoisie degraded nationalism into barren hyper-patriotism. Both concepts, therefore, must be cleansed and shown to the people anew, in a crystal-clear form. The nationalism of our worldview arrived at the right moment. Our movement seized the concept of socialism from the cowardly Marxists, and tore the concept of nationalism from the cowardly bourgeois parties, throwing both into the melting pot of our worldview, and producing a clear synthesis: German National Socialism. That provided the foundation for the rebuilding of our people. Thus this revolution was National Socialist." ...
Because these two terms are very common and so is the combination. For example, Israel -- the original prevailing ideology was nationalist (Zionism) and socialist (incidentally, this is the reason why Stalin supported creation of Israel).
Do you consider Israel to be an enemy to be destroyed too? If you do, I understand your position, if you don't , you are not being fair :P
You either grant every country the right to be nationalistic (helpful as long as this does not go too far) and experiments with socialism if they want to (usually harmful but not any of our business).
Your other error is in misunderstanding the term "socialism" as it is used in Baathism. Per Wikipedia:
Socialism in Ba'athist ideology does not mean state socialism or economic equality, but modernisation; Ba'athists believe that socialism is the only way to develop an Arab society which is truly free and united.
So, do not let yourself jump into false analogies with NSDAP, this is more about rejection of feodal past still present in many Arab countries (cf. Saudi Royals). I do not have a problem with this, and do not see why you should.
If by "democratic-republican rule" you are referring to our sorry domestic state, I certainly do not deny that fact. These are the enablers of foreign enemies, take note, while the identity of these foreign enemies does not change.
Oh, but it does change. Al Queda and ISIS are new enemies, obviously dangerous, and not merely enabled but created by our sorry rulers. But what makes Syria an enemy? Did I miss something?