Inconsistent: trivial, from falsehood follows anything.
Incomplete: Peano.
Weak: Presburger.
Nobody claimed it doesn't work. It clearly does. The question is if it's a fundamental property of the universe or just an useful but flowed human mental model.
Only trivial if you accept the principle of explosion (ex falso quodlibet or ex contradictione quodlibet). If you reject it, you end up with paraconsistent logic, from which one can develop nontrivial inconsistent mathematics see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mathematics-inconsistent/ and https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10092/5626/1263...
No. They can't be at the same times complete, consistent, decidable and powerful enough to express arithmetic. You can do complete, consistent and decidable though.