aside from the fact that soldiers can deploy very quickly to anywhere in the world,
what is the justification for putting our bases in so many foreign countries?

Mostly just what you said.
Some bases also serve to protect the countries that they are in to one degree or another. Would you be more or less likely to attack a country containing a base of the most powerful military in the world? Usually, the answer would be less... but of course terrorism throws a whole other variable in there.

The justification? Pretty obvious to many people outside the US... but maybe becoming more apparent to people there too.

Well let's see, we are in Germany because, oh yeah, the Soviet Union was threatening to take over post WW2 Europe. We are in Korea because, hmm let's see, North Korea did invade and nearly wiped out South Korea. In Kuwait because some guy named Saddam ran over that country. How about Bosnia, could be because some folks were killing Muslims following the Soviet breakup? How about that Kosovo war that many on the left adored for it's "humanitarian results". Or the invasion of Haiti? Well I guess if we were in none of those places there would be a lot more fighting, I'm sure that would make things better huh?

....and Panama? Honduras? Philippines? Turkey? Spain? Italy? Japan? Britain? Greenland? Guam? ......

The Pentagon-speak phrase you're searching for is "Power Projection".

Hey Chancey, why don't you pull your Atlas out and name the other 200 plus nations that also have no bearing on what we are talking about. Power projection has little to do with it either, it is a capability rather than a series of actions you should look it up sometime. But I do have to ask, why does the UN and other nations always ASK for the US to intermediate and keep the peace between warring factions and so few other nations? I can honestly say that if we were not there, many of those nations would cease to exist or would be at war as we speak. Ask the Serbs, they can't wait for us to leave Bosnia so they can start "cleansing" more Muslims...

ok, ok, there is no need for arrogance.

what about all the japanese people who were abused and killed in america, oh, when was it again, the 50s or so...why can´t japan keep a base in america so that doesn´t happen again?

by the way, kwll, i still don´t see why these countries have our bases doing an "after the fact" sort of prevention.
and on the other hand, forcing our bases on other countries with no bases on our land is unfair, don´t you think? a sort of arrogant world policeman.
i still don´t see your justification, dearest.

Hassia-

Reason number one that Japan doesn't have any military bases in our country, or any other counntry for that matter is that due to the treaty signed after WWII Japan is not allowed to have a militray geared toward offensive operations. What they have is a small national defense force, their mission is self explanatory.

The second reason is that the American people just don't want or need a foreign military on American soil.

On you other point, the United States is not "forcing our bases on other countries". In many cases a U.S. military base is seen a great thing. Not only does it provide a sense of psychological and in the unlikely case of conflict physical protection, but bases generate a great deal money toward the host country. Money in the form of civilian jobs that go to the local people, US dollars spent by military personnel in local shops, and a massive amount that goes toward leasing the land from the host country. And that just had to do with economic effecfs, in some cases (e.g. Lajes Field, Terceira Island, Portugal) the land is not leased, but the only air field is run by U.S. Air Force personnel, free of charge, and training is given to Portuguese military personnel, also with no cost to the host country.

A U.S. military installation abroad is still under full juristiction of the host govenment, if after the lease term is up and the host government want the U.S. gone, we will have to go. But, as you can see, that doesn't really ever happen. --Thaddeus

Hassia, if you would come up with an actual argument based on some points of fact I would be more inclined to debate the subject point for point. Your response indicated to me that you have not the knowledge of the facts to even begin an analytical case. Not sure what you mean by Japanese "abused and killed" in America in the 1950's???? I think you may be talking about detention camps which yes there were some rights taken away and some tragedy but certainly not even remotely close to the Nazi concentration camps of the same era. Also was not in the '50s but rather in the early '40s. Sounds to me like you have an off the cuff "opinion" that just happens to fit your world view with little in the way of evidence. Throw me a few facts and maybe we can discuss it.

ooooh! shot down off of my soapbox!