1. I am glad you are finally speaking through something other than quotes.
2. I don't rally understand what you are talking about here. The idea that the state should represent the will of the people and that socialism provides that does not make it inherently Islamic but Islamic by circumstance. Furthermore it is implied that any economic system which allows the state to represent the will of the people therefore making capitalism potentially compatible with Baathism.
3. You do realize that Baathism made Islam the state religion due to popular demand in order to gain support. Not because it was a tenant or because Baathism is inherently Islamic.
4. That was an exclusively political move and you are aware of it. Furthermore, you seem inclined to argue that Baathism's tenants are irrelevant and that what Baathism is can be seen in reality. This is an obvious moving of goalposts due to your inability to argue that Baathism, as an ideology, is Islamic. This is especially seen in your "Politics over principles" statement. However I will have you know that if this truly was the case then American democracy would be horrible and I don't mean it's structure or ideology, I mean the politics that democracy has partook in. Democracy was exclusionary, theocratic, racist, war-like, corrupt, often times violent and uncivil. According to your reasoning this is definite proof that democracy is horrible. This is because to you, ideology itself doesn't matter but the politics the ideology is associated with. And heck, this means that every political ideology on the planet is horrible because all ideologies have had bad politics. What matters about ideologies is the ideas they propose, not their practical implementations.
And P.S. the original Caliphate democratically elected the Caliph. Does that mean democracy is Islam?
5. Ok? Isn't this just proof that Baathism is an ideology that can be used for many different purposes? Like every single other ideology ever?
6. That was a typo. Sorry.