'Xackly - in Latin, it isn't "Gaul", but Gallia.
Also, I think there's a rather gigantically significant difference between saying that "Gaul should be divided into three parts" -- for purposes of Roman administration, and/or putting it under three different native chiefs to keep the parts fighting between themselves and thus not become as much of a threat to Rome's borders -- and saying that it all "has to be destroyed". (The Romans didn't like to gamble with things like that... And anything involving the French can become a crapshoot! :-)
AFAIK, no very prominent Roman ever said that about any place with enough emphasis to now quote it as if it were particularly significant -- with the obvious exception of Cicero ('t'was him, wannit?) and Carthage.
But, since I now realise what I only suspected before, namely that this is just another attempt at the typical French-baiting that war-mongering Americans seem to think is so clever these days, I must say I'm glad to see that what you're *actually* saying is, that "Three Frenchmen are better than no Frenchmen"! :-)
