I love a debate guys. I do debating for a hobby...

I am with you there! I do enjoy discussion and debate as a hobby, too.
Brooke was there anyway we could have won the war without so many casualties.
Of course. Nothing is ever perfect. Take two car engines. One gets 4 miles to the gallon, and one gets 40 miles to the gallon. The former is a gas guzzler, and the latter (by today's standards anyway) is not. If you argue that they are both the same and are both gas guzzlers, you are not correct. You are still not correct even though there is a way that the engine at 40 miles per gallon could get even better gas mileage (since perfection is rarely obtainable, and it is almost always possible to do at least a little better).
OK the USA has a presidential finding that we cannot take out leader of the a unjust government... Actually it is stated something about not assassinating a head of foreign power.
That is not very well followed and likely has all kinds of caveats on when it is in fact OK. All countries, the US included, have worked to kill the leaders of nations they were fighting (and sometimes not even openly fighting). The allies of course worked to try to kill Hitler for example.
Why could they not have just put bombs on Togo's palace.
I think you mean the Emperor's palace (as Tojo was the Prime Minister, and we would have been happy to kill him). We didn't want to kill the Emperor for very practical reasons. Because of the way Japanese society worked, we felt that if the US killed the Emperor, the Japanese people would rather die to the last person fighting us than give up; but that if the Emperor were alive, he could (if he saw how doomed things were) convince the Japanese people to surrender and not fight to the last person. Which is exactly what happened.
Hitlers residence..
The allies did try to kill Hitler. They weren't worried that killing him would cause the Germans to fight to the last person suicidally.
These men are the ones that started it.. Not the population. Most of the German people didn't know or knew very little about the extermination camps.. Why not hold the leader responsible by dropping a egg on his head..
Incorrect. It was the whole upper echelon of government that started it, not one man, and that government was strongly supported by the nation overall. If we could have ended the war by killing one man, we would definitely have tried it. We did try it in some cases. It is not easy to take out the head guy, by the way. Even with the most-modern technology available (like magic compared to WWII technology -- triangulation, satellite-guided missiles, bunker busters, full air superiority, etc.), fighting against a third-world country, and trying our best, we didn't manage to kill Sadam during the Iraq war.
The people were being patriotic. They were defending their homes from the invaders. Read The Forgotten Solider.
Of course. That's one of the things that makes war tragic -- people dying for bad causes.
Lets say China would say the USA government was in some way committing crimes against humanity. We would say that was just propaganda. Doesn't that apply to the Axis powers in WWll....
No. There is the truth that matters.
People tend to believe their government over a foreign powers words.
Yes. See remark on tragedy above.
The majority of the SS Officers were Austrian.
I don't know if this is true, but even if so, it is moot.
Hitler was a Bolverian or Austrian by birth.. He wasn't even German.
Where he was born doesn't matter at all. It's what is going on that matters. If a nation is working to kill you, you have to fight back. It doesn't matter if it is being led by a Bavarian (which is part of Germany, by the way), and Austrian, or an Eskimo.
My point is why not just take out all of the key leaders of the foriegn power.
If you can, you do that. If you can't, you fight a big war.
The german people were ready to surrender after the bomb went of in Wolf's Liar.
No they weren't, and they didn't. The US kept up a propaganda campaign for a long time in the war, trying to convince Germans to surrender. See your own comments about nationality and belief in native government above. The Germans were a people with a lot of fighting capability in them, and they kept it up until the end.
People also argue the same about Japan. "The sinking of all the supply ships put them in such a dire condition for food that they would have surrendered. We didn't need to use the atomic bombs." Yet if you read history (including the excellent "With the Old Breed," by E. B. Sledge or know what resources were being collected into Japan for the final battle for the home island, what toll Kamikaze attacks were having on US ships, that hundreds of mini subs were being readied on the coast, that 750,000 Japanese troops were in the area to oppose landing by 500,000 allied soldiers, how Japan fought for every single little island leading to Japan to nearly the last man despite knowing they would lose the battle, that estimates of taking the home island would involve 10 million Japanese casualties and 1 million allied casualties), you realize that the two atomic bombs were a huge savings in number of lives compared to the alternative.
The way the Japanese treated are POW was because in their eyes it was dishonorable to surrender. Read Flag of Our Fathers & Flyboys.
In their eyes they were only giving the POWs what they deserved. It was a mind set, away of life for them. 
Yes, but so what? There is right and wrong in the world defined by those with the power to enforce it. I'm sure that there are Satanists who think it's good to torture to death a child. Almost no one would conclude that their actions are then OK because by their religious beliefs it was OK. The folks who think it's bad have more power in the world and will enforce their idea of right and wrong. That's the way the world works.
I have said that I think our education system has a leftist agenda, which Karnak objected to. Again, perhaps my term "leftist" is wrong; but what I see is (again on average, not every single institution) a greater belief in things like the US being as bad as any other nation (even ones that killed 20 million of their own people), that socialist policies are good (when history is replete with very strong counter examples), and also these things like cultural and moral relativism -- that there is no real good or bad culture or morality. The idea of all that counts is whether the person doing it considers it bad or good -- no objective measurement outside of that whether it is bad or good. This is foolishness. Some things in the world work well and some work poorly, which makes some things good and some poor. I might have the opinion that putting saltwater in my gas tank is good for my car. But reality proves that it is stupid to do that. Therefore, it is a stupid action, and my belief otherwise does not counter that fact.