Antoine Clarke has a good post on (amongst other things) why the threat of Saddam developing Nukes is to some extent beside the point, and that the real reasons for removing Saddam Hussein are simpler, but no less compelling.

I also question the double talk about nukes in Iraq when the good reasons for toppling/killing Saddam are...

1. he's a national socialist tyrant
   
   
2. he's allegedly one of Al-Qaeda's main financial and logistical backers.

I'm told there is evidence to back up this claim, so why the red herrings?

There is another simple reason for taking out Saddam Hussein. The job was left half fininished a decade ago, and it was hoped that sanctions and the like would lead to Saddam eventually falling. Instead, we have sanctions that are being used as an grievance by Saddam and America's enemies everywhere. Look at all the children who are starving and/or without medical care because of the sanctions applied by those nasty Americans. Such suffering is in fact largely caused by Saddam Hussein, but a great many Arabs feel sympathy for the argument (and whatever the cause, I feel plenty of sympathy suffering Iraqis, and I think it is vile that the cradle of civilization is now the place it is). Al Qaeda uses it in its training videos. The situation with sanctions is an ongoing sore to the Arab world, and one that needs to be removed.