I get it now, the US and Briton are trying to pull a fast one here. This is designed to mimic the Canadian proposal but is setup in such a way that war can not be averted. Not only does the new resolution involve a absurdly short deadline and a vague to the point of useless definition of compliance. But it's also phrased such that the next resolution would have to be a positive one to prevent war.

Notice that bit that says that the Security Council must conclude that Iraq has complied fully and in every way, otherwise we go to war. This means that the US can veto the next resolution if they can't get enough votes, letting us get UN backing based only on our own vote.

Jay